Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL BILL

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL

EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL

LONDON UNDERGROUND (KING'S CROSS) BILL

MIDLAND METRO (No. 2) BILL

REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 31 January.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Sir George Young): None, Sir, on both counts.

Mr. Dalyell: That distinguished scholar Dr. Jacob Saki suggested on Radio 4 on Sunday that damage to Najaf and Karbala in particular, and at other Shi'ite shrines, could create the situation in which Iran would go to the aid of Iraq. Is not the bombing inhuman and counter-productive —and is not it perceived as such from Morocco right down to Malaysia? Should not all bombing be stopped forthwith?

Sir George Young: Before I answer the hon. Gentleman's question, I should tell the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment cannot be present in the House today as he is representing the United Kingdom at a meeting of Environment Ministers in Paris.
So far, there is no firm evidence of damage done to Iraq, although there is speculation about two buildings in Baghdad. Iraq has caused substantial damage by the wholesale looting of the national museum in Kuwait City,

and it inflicted considerable damage on Iran during the Iraq-Iran war. As to the hon. Gentleman's substantive point, he may recall that on 21 January, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that
Very clear instructions have gone to our troops to avoid sites of religious and cultural interest."—[Official Report, 21 January 1991; Vol. 184, c. 26.]

Mr. Adley: Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that about the only thing that many of us admire about the hon. Gentleman's question is his ability to persuade the Table Office to put it on the Order Paper? Will my hon. Friend thank English Heritage for the help that it extended to Highcliffe castle in Dorset, and if that organisation has any spare funds, will he suggest that that site of historic interest is a more appropriate focus of English Heritage's attention and funds?

Sir George Young: It would certainly be cheaper for English Heritage officials to visit my hon. Friend's constituency than the middle east. I am grateful for his kind comments about the assistance that English Heritage extended to his constituency.

Ur of the Chaldees

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what technical assistance has been provided by Her Majesty's inspectorate of ancient monuments in respect of the preservation of Ur of the Chaldees, and other archaeological/holy places in Iraq; and how many English Heritage experts have visited in the past two years archaeological sites in Mesopotamia.

Oral Answers to Questions — Local Government Finance

Mr. Haynes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to conclude his review of the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): Our review covers finance, structure and functions of local government, so is necessarily complex. The Government will announce conclusions as soon as they are ready to do so.

Mr. Haynes: That answer is not good enough. I expected to see the organ grinder at the Dispatch Box today, but he is not here, and obviously the junior Minister is answering for him. When will speed become the operative word in informing the House when the review will be finished and what will happen then? Our local authorities are suffering, and we will not have any more of it.

Mr. Portillo: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important to be as speedy as possible, but he will recognise that the matter is complex—and perhaps he will welcome the fact that we are dealing with functions, structure and financing together. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spent a considerable amount of time in the Chamber and said then that he hoped to give first indications of our thinking in the spring. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: When my hon. Friend is considering when to come out with the results of his deliberations will he please bear two points in mind? First, as whatever he decides will be with us for many years to come, can he resist the siren voice of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), despite the vigour of his presentation, and ensure that we do not hurry this decision? Secondly, can he please ensure, when he does decide what should be done, that the community charge remains part of it, so that people have to contribute to the local services that they enjoy in some form, however little they earn?

Mr. Portillo: As my hon. Friend says, it would indeed be nice to arrive at a solution that would stand for many years, so that we would not have to have constant change. Sadly, there is a certain amount of disagreement about the hon. Gentleman's second point, but I note his views and I know that many of my hon. Friends take the view that accountability is an important principle, which should remain in any of our new arrangements.

Mr. Gould: Will the Minister confirm that the outcome of his review could well mean that the poll tax remains in place?

Mr. Portillo: It could be that and it could be something different.

Mr. Favell: Whatever else comes out of the review, will my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State ensure that local authorities remain accountable to the people that they are intended to serve? Local authorities employ one in nine people in this country and, whatever local authorities would have people believe, some give rank bad service—everyone has heard stories of empire building and profligacy.

Mr. Portillo: Yes, I not only agree with my hon. Friend in much of what he says, but I believe that the introduction of the community charge has focused people's attention on the importance of making local authorities accountable. That is why I said, in answer to a previous question, that I believe that that is a principle which many of my hon. Friend's wish to preserve and defend.

Oral Answers to Questions — Newcastle upon Tyne Council

Mr. Clelland: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effects on the services of Newcastle upon Tyne city council following the financial decisions he has taken for the year 1991–92.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): I am satisfied that the settlement decisions are fair and realistic for all authorities. For Newcastle they mean a standard spending assessment of £1,000 per adult. Under our intended capping criteria, an increase in budget next year of up to 9 per cent. would be possible—more than enough for an appropriate level of service.

Mr. Clelland: Is the Minister aware that the standard spending assessment means little for the realistic budgets of local authorities? I am pleased that he nods in agreement with that comment. Is he aware that the city of Newcastle upon Tyne is facing £12·5 million in cuts? Does he imagine that such a sum can be found by making savings on paper clips? If not, can he name one area of the council's activities in which he could save one tenth of that amount? If he cannot answer that question, can he say why the Government should inflict such financial policies on councils, without making any assessment of the effect upon people?

Mr. Key: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern, especially for law centres such as Benwell, and I have written to him on the subject. However, it has never been Government policy to tell local authorities how to manage their affairs. The hon. Gentleman invites me to identify

areas where savings might be possible. I should be very surprised if there were not some administration areas where savings could be made.

Oral Answers to Questions — Homelessness

Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the number of people sleeping out over the 1990 Christmas period in major cities.

Sir George Young: My Department estimates that there are about 2,000 to 3,000 people sleeping out in central London and up to 2,000 in other cities. In London, Crisis accommodated between 500 and 600 rough, sleepers at Open Christmas each night during Christmas week. I can announce to the House today that my Department will be funding Centrepoint Soho to open up Soho Square hospital for the whole of the month of February. The purpose is to provide shelter for those sleeping rough, who would otherwise be on the streets until the hostels being provided under my rough sleeping initiative begin to come through in March. Centrepoint will open the Soho Square hospital on 1 February.

Mr. Battle: The Minister may know of the Nightstop project, a pioneering project among homeless youngsters in Leeds, which is supported by Barnardos and the churches. Is he aware that in the three months before Christmas, it reported a doubling in the number of inquiries and contacts by homeless youngsters? While I welcome the increased resources for London, will the Minister ensure that resources extend beyond London to the other cities in Britain that are experiencing this problem? Unless social security policy for young people is tackled, it will effectively undermine the Department's initiatives.

Sir George Young: Of course my Department must help organisations that operate outside London. We have increased the funding nationally for voluntary organisations working with the homeless from £2 million this year to £4·5 million in 1991–92.
At a helpful meeting that I had with voluntary organisations earlier this month, they told me that income support was relevant to the issues that we are discussing and I have undertaken to pass on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security any suggestions that they make about changes to the income support system.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. I support the Government's attempts to increase hostel provision, but does my hon. Friend agree that it would be sensible to try to persuade those with spare rooms in their homes to let them to lodgers? It used to be traditional for young people arriving in cities to find digs with a friendly landlady who would take them in and make them one of the family. At present, however, people are being put off by the fear that the council will increase the rates, judging the accommodation to be a boarding house; that the tax man will be after them for a return on the rent; and, worst of all, that the rent officer will come round and start imposing conditions.

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend made her suggestion about the friendly landlady at our last Question Time. I can think of no friendlier landlady than my hon. Friend


herself and I am sure that she will wish to act on her own proposal. Her suggestion about tax changes is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I shall pass it on to him. She is, however, right in saying that, if we are to make progress in tackling the problems of homelessness, we must use all the resources available to us, including those of the landladies whom she has mentioned.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I look forward to seeing the "To Let" signs going up in Lord North street very soon.
I thank the Minister for his visit to Crisis, which was in Bermondsey this Christmas, and for the initiatives that he has taken before and since, including today's announcement. Can he give a realistic estimate of the date by which, according to Government policy, no one who wishes to have a home will be homeless? Does he realise that a precondition of that is people having the money to pay for housing, which is currently prohibited by the social security system?

Sir George Young: We must draw a distinction between those who are homeless, as currently defined by the legislation, and those who are sleeping rough. The object of the initiative that I announced before Christmas is to make it unnecessary for young people or, indeed, anyone else to continue to sleep rough in central London. I believe that enough accommodation is in the pipeline, and coming through it, to fulfil that aim. We have announced 1,000 places in the first round of the initiative, with more coming up.
We are doing an audit with the voluntary organisations to find out exactly how many people are sleeping rough and to obtain a clearer idea of the sort of accommodation needed by those people—some of whom are highly dependent, others less so. We shall then match the results of the audit with the programme that we have on stream. I hope that we shall make progress and ensure that we have the right type and number of places for those who are currently sleeping rough.

Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend's announcement is very welcome. Does he agree, however, that every time that this issue comes up, year after year, it is pointed out that if Labour authorities in London released their empty houses and flats, the problem of homelessness in the capital would be solved? Has he any evidence that authorities are doing anything about the asset that they have in hand?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend reminds us of the recommendations of the Audit Commission. The commission demonstrated that if the worst performed no better than the average, a substantial number of new units would become available, leaving only about 2,500 families still in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. We must, of course, do all that we can to maintain the pressure on the less good performers to achieve the higher standards that we know are possible, and my Department monitors performances regularly.

Mr. George Howarth: I welcome that latest announcement, but is not it about time that the Minister realised that the real problem is the lack of affordable housing? Schemes and announcements by the Department will not resolve that. In December, the permanent under-secretary to the Department of the Environment told the Public Accounts Committee that it costs about £9,400 a year to keep a family in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, but £200 to service debt on a council house. The Government's

policy is more expensive as well as being catastrophic for people on the street and families in bed and breakfast. Is not it time that something was done instead of talk and no action.

Sir George Young: I have tried to explain to the House that we have been doing quite a lot. I know that the hon. Gentleman's concern is genuine, but there are about 600,000 empty properties in the private rented sector. If one wants to help the homeless quickly, it is more productive to examine how such properties can be brought back into use, rather than to address the longer-term questions that the hon. Gentleman raised about supply. It would take some time to increase the supply, so I want to get more properties into use quickly and cheaply. There are ways of achieving that other than the more long-term solution that he outlined.

Oral Answers to Questions — Energy Efficiency

Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review his regulations for home improvement grants and building regulations to take account of advances in energy efficiency measures.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): The regulations for house renovation grants and building regulations are kept under review by my Department.

Mr. Colvin: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on what has been done in this sphere, but will he acknowledge that half the energy used in the United Kingdom is used in buildings and that improving energy efficiency in them would therefore have a dramatic effect in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, which is one of his Department's objectives? Will he publicise successful energy efficiency schemes to encourage developers to invest more in energy efficiency, which is financially arid environmentally advantageous?

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend is right: we need to promote best practice in energy efficiency, as we do through the Energy Efficiency Office. I am glad to say that local authoriity associations recently published an environmental practice guide for local government, in which they set out many good examples of best practice for energy efficiency in local housing stock. We shall shortly organise a series of regional seminars targeted on chief executives and senior councillors to ensure that they appreciate what they can do to promote and encourage energy efficiency in their housing stock.

Mr. Squire: Is my hon. Friend aware of an excellent measure that is currently before the House, the Building Conversion and Energy Conservation Bill, which stands in my name and has the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House and people from outside the House? It would ensure proper thermal insulation of all conversions, which is not the current practice. Will my hon. Friend seriously consider that as a practical way of improving energy efficiency?

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend knows that we always give serious consideration to any idea that he puts forward.

Oral Answers to Questions — Sewage Discharge

Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to tighten regulations on the discharging of sewage around the coasts.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): On 5 March 1990, the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), announced that in future all significant discharges of sewage to coastal waters would receive at least primary treatment. This policy is being implemented, starting with necessary revisions to those schemes in the bathing waters programme as announced by my right hon. Friend on 14 November 1990. Regulations to give statutory effect to the EC bathing waters directive are to be made shortly.

Mr. Taylor: When does the Minister expect primary screening to be implemented around our coast? Is he aware that South West Water reneged on a pre-privatisation promise to carry out screening at Kieve Mills, which causes considerable pollution along the north coast of Cornwall? Will he join me in condemning that? Have any of the other privatised water companies taken similar action?

Mr. Trippier: On the latter point, I can confirm that the requirements set out in the bathing waters directive on whether primary, secondary or tertiary treatment must be given to sewage is the responsibility of the National Rivers Authority. That will be made even clearer when the municipal waste water directive comes on stream.
Secondly, I am not in a position to accuse South West Water of doing anything of the kind. If the Government had not privatised the water industry in the way that we did, which has allowed the investment of £28 billion to improve water—that is money that I can assure the hon. Gentleman I could not possibly have got from the Treasury—we would not have been able to comply with the European directive in the first place. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we intend to have 100 per cent. compliance with the bathing waters directive by 1997. We will be the first nation in Europe to comply with that European directive at that time. That is good news for this nation, although I do not expect to see it announced in any Liberal party literature.

Mr. Kilfedder: Is the Minister aware that there is a real problem as a result of raw sewage being dumped in Belfast Lough which, as a result of wind and tide, then comes up onto the coastline of my North Down constituency? In view of that real hazard to health, will he ensure that all dumping of sewage stops as soon as possible?

Mr. Trippier: The most important point that I can make to the hon. Gentleman is that the compliance to which I referred earlier applies to the United Kingdom as a whole, so all parts of the United Kingdom have to comply with the directive. It is clear from the response of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to the promise of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that we will achieve that objective. I believe that we might possibly achieve that objective by 1995. I certainly hope so.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Does the Minister agree that after 12 years of oil-rich Tory rule, it is a scandal that Lancaster university can report this week that children entering the

sea at Blackpool are five time more likely to contract diarrhoea and three times more likely to suffer from vomiting than children who stay on the beach? Why should children bathing at Blackpool have to suffer those health hazards for at least four more years? Does not that report highlight the disgrace of the Minister's visit to Brussels just before Christmas when he tried to get the case against Blackpool dropped or suspended in the European Court of Justice? Will not the report make the Commissioner change his mind?

Mr. Trippier: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if the previous Labour Government had not cut the amount of money available to the water authorities, we would have been in a much stronger position to comply with the European bathing directive a darn sight sooner. What I consider to be a scandal is the fact that the report, which I understand is still unfinished, was leaked for purely political purposes by the Labour leader of the county council who seems to take enormous delight in dragging down and selling short Blackpool and any part of the Fylde coast. It is a national scandal and a disgrace that she has approached European Commissioner Ripa di Meana asking him not to desist in bringing a prosecution against the British Government. I have never heard of a more scandalous and unpatriotic act.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Why does Britain test for only two types of sewage bacteria when the European directive allows for 21 tests? If British beaches fail to meet even those basic minimal standards, how can Britain claim not to be the dirty man of Europe?

Mr. Trippier: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Britain is certainly not the dirty man of Europe as is clear from all the evidence. We are anxious to comply with the European directives in any particular with regard to bathing waters or water quality of any kind.

Mr. Brazier: Will my hon. Friend join me in praising the work of the National Rivers Authority, which has a major office and laboratory in my constituency? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is only since the Government introduced the National Rivers Authority that we have been able to cut the flow of pollutants to the coastline via our rivers and that that is because water authorities no longer police themselves?

Mr. Trippier: I am happy to agree with every single word. I am very happy to compliment the National Rivers Authority. It was entirely the idea of the Conservative Government that we should set up such a regulatory body. The previous Labour Government never even dreamt of setting one up. I am proud to say that it is now the toughest regulatory body in Europe.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — Environment Council

Ms. Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what matters will be discussed at the next meeting of the EC Environment Council.

Mr. Trippier: The agenda for the next Environment Council in March will be a matter for the presidency,


currently held by Luxembourg. The agenda has yet to be fixed, but we expect the discussions to include proposals on sewage treatment, diesel engine emissions, dangerous chemicals, the movement of hazardous waste and a labelling scheme for environmentally friendly products.

Ms. Quin: Will Ministers be setting a date for the introduction of an environmental labelling scheme to help consumers? Does the Minister recall the commitment made in the House in March last year by the previous Secretary of State that, if agreement had not been reached at the end of 1990, the Government would go ahead with a national scheme? As no date has been set by the European Community, when will the Government bring in the national scheme that they promised?

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Lady will have heard me mention in my substantive answer that this matter will be on the agenda of the next Council meeting. I welcome that, as I am sure she will. It is true that my right hon. Friend asssured the House that, in the event of a European scheme's not being brought forward by the end of this year—

Mr. Cryer: Last year.

Mr. Trippier: —this year—we certainly intend to introduce a national scheme. I stand by what my right hon. Friend said.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Will my hon. Friend ensure that, during the discussion on sewage treatment, attention is paid to the discriminatory nature of the Commission in its legal actions against member states? For example, why has no action been taken against the Italian Government, despite the fact that all sewage from the city of Milan goes straight into the Po and out to sea, or has it something to do with the fact that the Commissioner is an Italian?

Mr. Trippier: I am more than a little concerned about this matter. There seems to be a lack of fairness in comparisons between member states. There certainly seems to be a very different way of collecting the statistics that are supposed to be made available to the Commission and an incredible delay in sending those statistics from certain member states. My hon. Friend would not expect me to name a particular country, but I listened carefully to what he said.
Much of the problem would be cleared up if we could set up the European Environment Agency. At the previous Council of Ministers meeting in Brussels I made it clear that the sooner we have that environmental agency the better, so that we can have a common statistics-gathering service. That would enable us to make fair comparisons so that prosecutions emanating from Brussels could be a little fairer. I strongly object to the fact that the Commission is sending letters to member states, possibly threatening prosecution, when the building from which they come is built on an open sewer, which would never be allowed in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Beggs: Will the Minister ask the Secretary of State to take the opportunity when the Council next meets to draw attention to the serious problem in Northern Ireland of harmful emissions from power stations and the urgent necessity to have access to natural gas to reduce such harmful emissions?

Mr. Trippier: I am pleased to give that assurance.

Oral Answers to Questions — Peak Park Planning Board

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to introduce direct elections to the Peak park planning board.

Mr. Baldry: My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to do so. However, the Countryside Commission is at present considering a wide-ranging review of national park policy and we shall consider its recommendations when they have been received.

Mr. Knox: How does my hon. Friend justify the fact that the Peak park is one of only two areas in the country where planning decisions are taken by people who are not directly elected? Does he think that this is fair to people who live in the Peak park, as some of my constituents do?

Mr. Baldry: As my hon. Friend will know, in the 40th anniversary year of the legislation that created the national parks, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), who was then Secretary of State for the Environment, announced a wide-ranging review to consider the future policy and purposes of national parks. Clearly the matters referred to by my hon. Friend are within the terms of reference of that review, the report of which will appear shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — Land Register

Mr. Summerson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that all vacant, dormant, derelict, underused and underutilised land in public ownership is entered on the land register; how many acres are currently on the register; and how much has been sold for private development since 1 January 1990.

Sir George Young: Complete up-to-date information is not available. I am considering what further action should be taken on vacant land, including ways of improving the registers.

Mr. Summerson: Does my hon. Friend agree that were more, if not all, publicly owned land made available for development, it would not only enhance our inner-city areas and facilitate the provision of more much-needed housing, but reduce the pressures for development in the countryside?

Sir George Young: What my hon. Friend says is true. At the last reckoning, there were about 82,400 acres of derelict land on the register. Of course, a great deal of land was not registered. Much of that land is suitable for housing. If it were made available, homes could be provided for people who need them and the demand for green-field development could be reduced. I entirely endorse the principles that my hon. Friend has enunicated.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Could the register be extended to include vacant property? How many vacant houses owned by Government Departments, as distinct from local authorities, are there in the United Kingdom?

Sir George Young: I do not have the exact figures at my fingertips. From time to time efforts are made to introduce legislation that would do what the hon. Member suggests. I hope that he will accept that there is a distinction between


a register of derelict land and a register of properties that are not occupied. There would be considerable problems keeping the latter up to date.

Mr. Steen: Was not the whole point of setting up the register to identify vacant land in public ownership and then get rid of it? For the past 10 years—since the register came into existence—tens of thousands of acres of vacant public land have been got rid of, but tens of thousands of acres have also been added. Included in the latter is the land that public undertakers took with them when they went into the private sector. If the Government are having difficulty getting rid of surplus public land in local authority ownership, should not they set an example by getting rid of some of the surplus land in Government ownership, over which they have control?

Sir George Young: Of course, the Government should lead by example. As my hon. Friend knows, we issued a consultation paper on this subject last autumn and at the moment I am considering the responses. I had a most helpful meeting with my hon. Friend and his co-authors of the publication "PLUMS", which contained a foreword from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am considering how to respond, taking account of the suggestions in that consultation document and of other suggestions. It is clear that fresh initiatives in this area are needed.

Mr. O'Brien: When the Minister introduces the register of vacant dormant and derelict land will he include a separate paragraph on the vacant land under the control of the urban development corporations, particularly the London Docklands development corporation, which is being wound up? Will he state the amount of land that is in the charge of the UDCs and the LDDC?

Sir George Young: I am sure that that information is readily available from the LDDC. The LDDC took over a chunk of London that was derelict and during the past few years it has been converting that land very imaginatively and putting it to productive use. It will continue to do so until all the vacant land is put to better use.

Oral Answers to Questions — Rural Housing

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the Association of District Councils and interested local authorities about the shortage of low-cost housing in rural areas; and what action he intends to take to alleviate this situation.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): My right hon. Friend receives such representations from time to time. We recognise that there is a shortage of low-cost housing in some rural areas and have taken a series of measures to help to improve supply. We have substantially increased public funding for housing association schemes through the Housing Corporation's special rural programme and we recently announced an extra £50 million of credit approvals for rural local authorities for a new programme of low-cost housing. We have also amended planning guidance to permit development of low-cost housing for local needs on small sites not otherwise designated for housing.

Mr. Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that Macclesfield borough council is extremely prudent and responsibly run and has an excellent housing officer, but that there remains a grave shortage of low-cost housing in rural areas? Does he accept that our housing investment programme allocation is effectively wiped out by the capital receipts which are taken into account and that the usable portion of capital receipts will merely cover the repair and refurbishment of existing housing stocks? My Conservative-controlled council is unanimous in its view that we must be allowed to spend more of our capital receipts on providing something that is essential for the health of our area.

Mr. Yeo: I gladly join my hon. Friend in congratulating his borough council on the efficiency with which it manages its housing. The Government's policy on capital receipts is to redirect the major portion of them to areas where the housing need is greatest, which is not always the same as the area where the receipts arise. However, I share my hon. Friend's desire that rural areas should enjoy an adequate supply of low-cost housing. I commend to him and his borough council the opportunity that now exists for local planning authorities to release small sites in villages, which would not otherwise be designated for housing, for low-cost schemes for rent and for sale to meet local needs.

Mr. Morley: Low-cost homes are welcome in rural areas, but they do not deal with the real problem of the hidden homeless—people who are living with friends and relatives—or families who move to rural areas but cannot find accommodation. Many such people had their homes repossessed because they could not keep up with crippling mortgage repayments. They need low-cost rented accommodation and councils are in the best position to provide it. Will the Minister take off the artificial restrictions on local councils and allow them to use their capital receipts to provide a choice of homes to rent and to buy?

Mr. Yeo: We have a comprehensive programme. I have already referred to the credit approvals that have been given to local authorities for use in rural areas. But the Housing Corporation programme, which will double its spending over the next three years, will go a long way to providing homes to meet the needs of the people whom the hon. Gentleman describes as the hidden homeless.
Less than one mortgage in 300 leads to a repossession, so it is hardly likely that repossessions are a major contributor to homelessness. Above all, I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises the distinction between the people whom he describes as the hidden homeless and the people whom the public may think of as homeless—the rough sleepers to whom my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning referred.

Mrs. Currie: Does my hon. Friend agree that in areas such as south Derbyshire a great deal of land can be released for rural housing through opencast coal mining? Will he welcome, as I do, the efforts of the British Coal opencast executive to develop over 400 acres of land in the Cadley hill area? It hopes to provide housing, industrial sites, a golf course, an hotel and a bypass for the local village, all of which will be welcome. Will he ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to come and see the site when it is finished?

Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her kind invitation. There is a great deal of scope for using land —especially land that has been reclaimed, perhaps with the help of derelict land grant—for imaginative housing schemes in areas where it is easy to obtain planning permission and where the scheme will be welcome to the local community.

Oral Answers to Questions — Local Government Finance

Mr. Nellist: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he is making with his review of the poll tax; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Portillo: My right hon. Friend has announced the new community charge reduction scheme, which is the first result of our review and which will be in place to reduce next year's charges. Work on the longer tens is continuing.

Mr. Nellist: Despite the answers given yesterday by the Secretary of State to me and by the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) that local authorities could be flexible about the poll tax and the troops in the Gulf, does the Minister agree that the 32 Tory councillors on Newbury district council must have approved sending a poll tax demand to 20-year-old Private Mark Patchett, who received it in a trench on the Saudi-Kuwait border? Even though I have not altered my opposition to both the tax and the war, does not the Minister accept that he should take the opportunity this afternoon to do as President Bush did in America last week, when he announced that United States rank-and-file service men and women were exempt from federal income tax, and announce that British troops in the Gulf are henceforth exempt from the poll tax?

Mr. Portillo: I listened to the exchange yesterday between the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) and my right hon. Friend and I did not think that the hon. Gentleman heard my right hon. Friend correctly. What my right hon. Friend said was that community charges registration officers have discretion and that we have recommended to them that where a service man is posted to the Gulf for an indefinite period, he should be regarded as exempt from the day of his posting. The local authority that the hon. Gentleman cited recognised that it had not operated in accordance with that guidance and it issued an apology.
I have no reason to believe that the guidance is defective or that there is need for legislation. If we found that the arrangements were not working satisfactorily for any reason, we would reconsider the matter. The important thing is to give our guidance a chance to work. I have no reason to believe that it is not working satisfactorily.

Mr. Channon: Since my hon. Friend announced recently that the review would take into account not only the community charge but the functions and status of local government, will he assure me that he is giving careful attention to the need to reintroduce county boroughs which would be popular in all parts of the country?

Mr. Portillo: I have noted that my right hon. Friend and others support that idea. Many of my hon. Friends would like to have more unitary authorities and they look back to the county boroughs which used to exist.

Obviously, I cannot give my right hon. Friend a commitment now, but it is within the scope of the review to consider such matters.

Rev. Martin Smyth: In an earlier reply to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), it was suggested that the review was complex. Does not it add to the complexity of the review that although the Secretary of State invited parties to participate, he turned down the offer of the fourth-largest party in the House to take part, especially when that party represents constituents, particularly service men, who will be affected?

Mr. Portillo: I am happy to clarify the matter. The Government do not think that it would be productive to talk to parties from Northern Ireland about conditions in Northern Ireland, because that is a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. If representatives of parties in Northern Ireland wish to discuss the effect of the community charge and its arrangements on their constituents who live in Great Britain, I should be happy to accede to that and have a meeting with them.

Mr. Burns: Can my hon. Friend confirm whether during the review he has had any discussions with the Lord President's office or with your office. Mr. Speaker, about the rules of suspension from the House, to take into account Labour Members who are illegally refusing to pay their community charge?

Mr. Portillo: I have not had such discussions, although the question arises sometimes when local authority members who are not paying their community charge have voted on questions of non-collection. I believe that grave legal issues arise. I do not know how they would be resolved in a court of law, but elected representatives should be cautious not only about the example that they set but about voting on matters in which they have an interest.

Mr. Blunkett: In my letter to the Secretary of State on the exemption from the poll tax of service personnel in the Gulf, I offered the full co-operation of the Labour party in passing any regulations necessary to ensure that such action could be carried out by local authorities throughout the country. In the light of the comments yesterday of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) about the increase of £14 per head to residents of that area because of the number of people affected by the Gulf crisis, are the Government willing to reconsider yesterday's announcement so that full reimbursement can be made to local authorities, clarity can be provided to ensure that all people have the same treatment, wherever they live, and fairness and decency can apply?

Mr. Portillo: I am grateful for the Labour party's offer to speed through any necessary legislation, but, as I said in answer to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), I am not satisfied that there is a need for legislation. Our recommendations will cope satisfactorily with the generality of cases. The specific case of local authorities with a large number of service men posted to the Gulf which are therefore losing community charge income will be raised at a meeting which I shall have at 4 pm with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), who is leading a delegation. I shall listen


carefully to what he has to say and it will be of broader application to other local authorities. When I have heard the case I shall consider it carefully.

Oral Answers to Questions — Waste Recycling

Mr. Mans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action is being taken to encourage the recycling of waste.

Mr. Baldry: The White Paper on the environment, "This Common Inheritance", sets out a number of measures that we will be pursuing vigorously to ensure successful recycling. We will be pressing industry to increase both the recycling of materials and the use of recycled material; encouraging retailers to provide collection facilities for recyclable material for their customers; and persuading industry to expand its capacity to process reclaimed material.

Mr. Mans: I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Does he agree that this country still has a long way to go before we can be satisfied with the amount of material that we recycle? Will he encourage other Departments to follow the example of the Department of the Environment in making available bins for recyclable material and in using recycled paper?

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Government Departments are seeking to put their houses in order. The Department of the Environment and the Department of Trade and Industry pay a reasonable premium when purchasing recycled paper and will adopt a policy of positive discrimination in favour of recycled goods wherever practicable and economic. The Department of the Environment has introduced green bins into its main buildings as part of the scheme to recycle office grade waste paper. I hope that other Departments and every office in the country will follow that lead.

Mr. Salmond: Is the Minister aware of the technology for and possibility of using sewage in gasification for power generation or other purposes? Can he point to a single piece of research issued by his Department to local authorities to make them aware of the possibilities of recycling and using sewage in that way?

Mr. Baldry: We seek to ensure that local authorities are aware of best practice in recycling, as in every other area.

Oral Answers to Questions — Local Government Finance

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with west midlands councillors to discuss the community charge review.

Mr. Key: My right hon. Friend met members of Birmingham city council on 18 January and discussed with them a wide range of issues relevant to the review of local government structure and finance.

Mrs. Hicks: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has demonstrated wisely his willingness to go and listen to the voice of the west midlands and to consult widely politicians of all parties. I thank him for that. Will he go a stage further and give those councillors the reassurance that they need, which is that he will carefully assess the weaknesses and strengths of the community charge, not

least the principle that each individual should make a contribution to the payment for services received? Have Labour Members, especially those who represent west midlands seats, taken advantage of that and contributed to the debate? To date, I have heard a great deal of criticism, but not much constructive help.

Mr. Key: I give my hon. Friend the assurance that she seeks. We shall give due consideration to all that she says. It is true that throughout the country Ministers are meeting members of local authorities of all political parties. We are meeting Liberal Democratic Members of the House and we are grateful for their contribution to the debate. It is a matter of some sorrow that the parliamentary Labour party is not interested in taking part in the discussions.

Mr. Lewis: At the meeting did west midlands councillors complain about the bureaucracy surrounding the poll tax? Is the Minister pleased that nationwide £130 million has been wasted on updating poll tax registers during the past 12 months?

Mr. Key: The Secretary of State discussed with city councillors income from the charge, the level of standard spending assessments and the fact that Birmingham has an 18 per cent. increase in its SSAs. They discussed the overall role of government in controlling spending. There was a discussion with Labour councillors and others about the question of payment of councillors, the number of councillors and the possibility of a directly elected leader and whether he should be paid. It is curious that those councillors did not raise the point to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Conway: Is my hon. Friend aware that his Department counts Shropshire as being in the west midlands? Does he therefore accept that we in Shropshire do not regard the county borough option, which is being widely canvassed, as a suitable solution to the problems of accountability? As long as we have two-tier local government, accountability will not be achieved.

Mr. Key: I note my hon. Friend's point and I am sorry if there was any misunderstanding about it.

Mr. Gould: In the light of the earlier admission from the Minister of State that the poll tax review might leave the poll tax in place in the west midlands and elsewhere, can the Minister say what has happened to the Secretary of State's reforming zeal and to the ferocious attacks that he made on the poll tax when he was campaigning for the Tory leadership? Why will not the right hon. Gentleman and his ministerial colleagues admit that the poll tax is totally discredited and must be abolished? Why cannot he see that that simple admission will clear the way for a proper discussion of what might take its place?

Mr. Key: My right hon. Friend made an exceptionally robust contribution in the House yesterday afternoon and he listened for some hours to the speeches of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would recognise the widely accepted points in favour of the community charge, such as that everybody should contribute something, which would remain valid whatever one called it.

Oral Answers to Questions — Housing Association Rents

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the average increase in housing association rents in the London and south-east region during 1990–91.

Sir George Young: Information on rents is not available in this form. Most housing association tenants pay fair rents, which are subject to re-registration every two years. Increases for housing association tenancies re-registered in London and the rest of the south-east during the second quarter of 1990 were 21 and 23 per cent. respectively, over two years.

Mr. Corbyn: Does the Minister agree that those rent increases are absolutely disgraceful for the many poor families who live in that accommodation? The Government's inability to provide sufficient funds to the Housing Corporation to support housing associations' new-build programmes has forced them to borrow money from the private sector, through the banking system. Therefore, they have to pay enormous interest rates. That is one factor which has forced up housing association rents, together with the Government's general trend towards deregulation.
Does the Minister accept that the problem of homelessness can be resolved only when we have sufficient affordable housing for rent? Only that will end the scandal of homelessness in London and the south-east.

Sir George Young: I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his question. The increase in rents was about the same as the increase in average earnings—average earnings went up 22 per cent. over two years as against rent increases of 21 and 23 per cent. For those not earning, housing benefit will bear the brunt of the increase. Such people are shielded against the increases about which we are speaking.
In the new regime under which housing associations operate they are registered charities and they are required to set rents within reach of people in low-paid employment. Although the new rents may be higher than fair rents, they enable the housing association movement to sustain a much bigger programme of new homes, for which the hon. Gentleman was calling at the end of his question.

Mr. Soley: Tenants of housing associations, councils and the private sector face a disgraceful position. Did not rents in the housing association sector go up by about 25 per cent. the other year? Is not it also true that council rents will go up dramatically in the next couple of weeks and that private sector rents are out of the reach of many people? In those three examples housing benefit does not meet the needs of many people, particularly pensioners

with small occupational pensions. What will the Government do about rents that are increasingly unaffordable in a rented sector has suffered a collapse, with the loss of 1·5 million properties in the past 10 years? There must be an answer that produces affordable rents in affordable properties.

Sir George Young: I do not accept the premise on which the hon. Gentleman based his question. Housing benefit will underpin market rents—we have made that absolutely clear. If people cannot afford to pay that market rent, housing benefit will take the strain. It is not true that fair rents have increased faster than earnings—they have increased broadly in line. Over two years there has been a 22 per cent. increase in fair rents and, in London, there has been a 21 per cent. increase in earnings. Therefore, it is not true that rents are rising faster than average earnings.
I repeat that the housing benefit system exists to enable people to pay their rent. There can be no question of people losing their homes because they cannot afford to pay reasonable rents.

Oral Answers to Questions — Competitive Tendering

Mr. Day: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what savings he estimates will be made as a result of the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering.

Mr. Key: The Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 required local authorities to expose building and highways work to competition and compulsory competitive tendering was extended to a number of other local authority services by the Local Government Act 1988. My Department has commissioned research into the effect or the 1988 Act. Information about financial effects should be available shortly.

Mr. Day: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the Labour party proposes to abolish compulsory competitive tendering for local services, despite the benefits that it has brought to local people in the form of reduced costs and better services? Does he agree that it shows that, despite the rhetoric of the Opposition, which appears to commit them to efficiency in local government, they are in fact committed to the maintenance of socialist dogma in many of Britain's town halls?

Mr. Key: My hon. Friend has put his finger on an important point. One of the greatest safeguards for local consumers of services is the Audit Commission. The Minister of State drew to the attention of the House in yesterday's debate the fact that the Labour party has plans to subsume the Audit Commission—another telling example of its intentions.

Points of Order

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It concerns hon. Members' access to Downing street. Twenty of my hon. Friends and I had arranged to present a letter voicing our concern and that of other hon. Members about the 20 million people threatened with starvation in Africa and the Government's wholly inadequate response to that. We had arranged to be there at 10.30 this morning—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Lady relate her point of order to my responsibilities? I have no jurisdiction over what goes on in Downing street.

Mrs. Clwyd: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you have made a previous ruling on this matter. We were told by the police in Downing street that only six hon. Members would be allowed through the gates. When we asked why, we were told that that was the rule and that it had always been so. We know that that is not true.
We were treated with considerable discourtesy and abuse by the police. We asked the policeman in charge to consult his superior; he returned 10 to 15 minutes later, and all 21 of us were allowed through the gates with no inspection of our passes.
I make this point not to ask for any privilege for hon. Members but to seek to uphold the democratic rights of elected Members to have access to the Prime Minister in No. 10.

Mr. Speaker: I have no recollection of ever having made a ruling on Downing street, which is well outside the precincts of the Palace—

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me finish.
All I can tell the hon. Lady is that I am sure that what she has said will have been heard by the Ministers now on the Front Bench.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order concerns access to this place, which is your responsibility as Chairman of the House of Commons Commission.
Yesterday there was a lobby of firemen worried about cuts in the fire service, and one of my constituents, Jack Womersley, had been sent a letter by me arranging to meet him in Central Lobby, as is the custom. He was not allowed access to Central Lobby; when he was allowed in, at 2.30 pm, he was ushered down into Westminster Hall and not permitted access to Central Lobby even after a meeting in the Grand Committee Room. That meant that he had to pass a green card, transferred to him by someone else, to another person to put in for me.
It is the usual custom and practice for Members who want to show that they are meeting a constituent in Central Lobby, when this place is open, to send him a letter stating that a meeting will take place, and that is what I did. But my constituent was refused admission both before 2.30 pm and after 3 pm, and he was not allowed to come and see me. This needs looking into. I know that arrangements are made when there is a lobby, but my constituent particularly requested permission to see me and was refused, and that is disgraceful.

Mr. Speaker: I shall ask for a report about the case. I understand that there were several thousand people in the Lobby yesterday. A great deal of trouble has been caused in the past by people on lobbies coming with letters from their Members of Parliament and by that means gazumping the queue. I imagine that may be the reason why this incident took place. However, I shall look into the matter.

Mr. Derek Conway: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many hon. Members, myself included, have an office on the outskirts of the Palace, in my case in St. Stephen's Porch. Therefore, we have occasion several times during the day to come through St. Stephen's and the Central Lobby to reach the Chamber and Committee Rooms. For us, trying to get through mass lobbies is often a difficult job, but the police officers on duty are extraordinarily helpful and respectful to constituents visiting this place. Those who observe them carrying out their duties know that some of the accusations made today are far from the normal practice. We should be grateful for their vigilance.

Mr. Speaker: The House accepts that the police do a remarkable job, particularly in dealing with what I understand was a lobby of 10,000.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, although he is taking time from an Opposition supply day.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a simple point of order. I understand that the BBC, as part of a general move towards censorship, has banned any song that includes the word "peace" in the title or lyrics. Some 67 songs have been banned and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Not by the wildest stretch of the imagination could I be held responsible for that. I would not relish songs in the Chamber, either.

Mr. Terry Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). I was in the same position yesterday during the firemen's lobby. When you review this matter, may I suggest that you think about the convenience of hon. Members? I write to constituents and arrange to meet them at a specific time in a specific place, for my convienence. Yesterday, I was seriously inconvenienced by the fact that my constituent was trying to gain entrance with my letter but was refused. Will you consider that, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I shall consider that, but I recollect that, when I was in a rather different position, with the late friend of many hon. Members, Mr. Walter Harrison, we had trouble with large lobbies.

Mr. James Lamond: Late? I saw him yesterday.

Mr. Speaker: I beg his pardon. I hope that Walter Harrison is very much with us.
I shall look into the matter, but it is not as easy as hon. Members sometimes make out.

BILL PRESENTED

PROTECTION OF BADGERS

Sir Nicholas Bonsor, supported by Mr. Michael Colvin, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. Nicholas Soames and Mr. Barry Field, presented a Bill to amend the Badgers Act 1973 to extend protection to badger setts against acts likely to cause bodily harm to badgers, to restrict further the entry of dogs into badger setts, to increase the penalties for offences under the Act, and to amend further the Protection of Animals Act 1911 to allow courts to disqualify those convicted of certain offences under the Badgers Act 1973 from keeping a dog: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 8 February and to be printed. [Bill 70.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).
That the draft Agricultural, Fishery and Aquaculture Products (Improvement Grant) Regulations 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Question agreed to.

Nurse Prescribing

Mr. Dudley Fishburn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Medicines Act 1968, the National Health Service Act 1977 and the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 in respect of pharmaceutical services; to make provision for registered nurses to prescribe medicinal products in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes.
The purpose of my Bill is straightforward. It is to give nurses the authority to write prescriptions for a limited number of medicines. Although hundreds of thousands of patients receive care at home from Britain's 28,000 community nurses, and although it is those nurses who determine what medicines or medications are needed for re-supply, only a doctor can sign the necessary prescription form. This is a bureaucratic bottleneck that needs breaking. The object of my Bill is not to involve nurses in the diagnosis of a disease or its treatment—none want that—but to allow them more responsibility in the long-term, continuing management of a patient's care.
This is a liberalising Bill. It costs nothing. It increases efficiency and diminishes suffering. Imagine someone with a disability or a chronic disease or whom age has made infirm. A routine medication that he needs, often something ordinary such as a dressing or a lotion, runs out. The community nurse who visits regularly can do nothing, so the patient has to lug himself down to the nearest surgery—often long distances in the country—or through heavy London traffic, and wait in a queue for the doctor to fill in a form. Such madness imposes suffering and strain on hundreds of thousands. It causes frustration in the nursing profession and unnecessary inefficiency in the medical one.
The Bill would do away with the need for doctors to waste their time writing out prescriptions for such things as bandages or repeat dosages of pain killers. Nurses who had had training to the highest standards would be able to write them instead, but only from an agreed list of products—a nurses formulary, as it would be called.
This decent liberalising measure is already in place in countries such as Canada and the United States, but in Britain there has been unpardonable delay. Report after report has looked into the suggestion that nurses should be given the power to prescribe, and report after report has said that we should go ahead with it because it is a good idea which will streamline procedures.
First, a committee headed by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege reported in 1986. A year later, the Select Committee on Social Services recommended that the Government get a move on. The Department of Health decided to go over the ground itself once again and its report was even more emphatic. It said, "Let nurses prescribe," and set a deadline of this year for making the legislative changes. Those changes constitute my Bill.
Section 52 of the Medicines Act 1968 needs amendment so that pharmacists can recognise prescriptions written by nurses. Likewise, section 27 of the National Health Service Act 1977 needs amendment so that prescriptions written by nurses can be dispensed.
The whole thrust of health care, not just in Britain but throughout the west, is to allow those who are elderly, disabled or chronically ill to get as much treatment at home as possible. It is cheaper and it is better that way. A


successful system of health care is one that keeps as many people as possible away from the queue at the doctor's surgery or the hospital clinic.
That is why the British Medical Association wants to see the legislation passed. It knows that nurses already write out prescriptions unofficially for the overworked doctor to scrawl his incomprehensible signature on. But it knows, too, that that is not good practice.
Britain's nurses want the change and the responsibility and training that would go with it because they want the best, fastest, most uncluttered service for their patients. They can see the absurdity of cancer patients suffering great pain at home who cannot have the dosage of their painkiller altered by the nurse who looks after them. They know the inconvenience facing an incontinent elderly person who cannot even get something as simple as a bedpad without a visit to the doctor.
But most of all, it is the public who need the change. The extension of limited prescribing rights to nurses is supported by groups such as Age Concern and the Spastics Society, by those trying to help the homeless, who generally do not have resort to a general practitioner, and by those helping the terminally ill to live out their last days without disruption.
But the net goes far further than that. Just to give one example, thousands of diabetics who regularly have to inject themselves with insulin would be able to get their supplies of syringes from their community nurses.
The Bill appeals to me as a Conservative, as I know it appeals to those on the Opposition side who have supported me, because it liberalises, because it strips back a layer of form filling, because it costs nothing. It reflects the times by allowing the best modern practice and it reflects a need—the need to deliver our health services with the maximum of efficiency and a minimum of fuss. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Dudley Fishburn, Mr. Jack Ashley, Sir David Price, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Miss Emma Nicholson, Mr. Sam Galbraith, Mr. John Butterfill, Mr. Jerry Hayes, Ms. Hilary Armstrong and Mr. Roger Sims.

NURSE PRESCRIBING

Mr. Dudley Fishburn accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Medicines Act 1968, the National Health Service Act 1977 and the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 in respect of pharmaceutical services; to make provision for registered nurses to prescribe medicinal products in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 26 April and to be printed. [Bill 71.]

Opposition Day

4TH ALLOTTED DAY

Recession in Industry

Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Gordon Brown: I beg to move,
That this House is concerned about the deepening recession which is bringing rising bankruptcies and closures, falling output and investment and fast rising unemployment hitting all regions and all industries; notes that Britain has the biggest trade gap, the highest interest rates and worst inflation of its major European competitors; condemns the Government for the economic mismanagement that has created a recession that is happening nowhere else in Western Europe; and calls for an immediate reduction in interest rates, a Budget for investment in industry, and a modern industrial policy to improve Britain's training and technological capabilities and to promote regional economic development.
The motion states that urgent measures are needed to tackle the recession, British industry needs a long-term policy, as an immediate measure interest rates should be cut, we need the Chancellor to plan a Budget giving investment incentives for the future, and the new industry policy for the 1990s—similar to that practised by our successful competitors overseas—must ensure a proper commitment to training, technology and regional economic development.
The motion is urgent because, as right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House know, 100 companies throughout Britain will go bankrupt today alone. This week, at least 5,000 men and women will lose their jobs in manufacturing industry alone. Yesterday's Confederation of British Industry survey reported that only 4 per cent. of British firms are in any way optimistic about the future. No other western European country is losing so many jobs, and so many companies, at such a fast rate as the United Kingdom. The tragedy is that that is occurring in every area, region, occupation and profession. It is also tragic that the Government's response to our motion does not make one mention of their concern about the loss of businesses, closures and bankruptcies, and the rising unemployment that confronts all parts of the country.
Eleven and a half years ago, the Government set out to eliminate assistance to industry. They not only eliminated assistance but much of industry as well. First, we were told by Ministers that there was to be no recession. As the Prime Minister said to us on 6 December 1989 in his previous office as Chancellor of the Exchequer:
I do not think that a recession is either likely or necessary.
He remarked that those who predicted recession were "professional pessimists".
Next, we were told that there would be no recession, but that there would be a pause—a turn of phrase which is in the style of the earlier prediction about an inflationary blip. As recently as 30 October 1990, we were told that if there were to be a recession, it would be short; then that it would be small; then that it would be shallow; then that it would be modest. When it was proved that the recession would not be short, small, shallow or modest, the present


Chancellor agreed in a radio interview on 1 January that there was a recession, but that there would be a prize at the end of it.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, not to be outdone in that battle of euphemisms, made one visit to a House of Lords Select Committee just before Christmas, and told it:
When I go north to Scotland, if you mention the word recession, then they think you are referring to some dim and distant time in 1981, and you have to explain that you are referring to the south-east of England.
Note that the Secretary of State responsible for managing this country's industrial policy thinks that recession is taking place only in the south-east. He told the Committee also that that meant there was "some silver lining".
Are the closure of Howdens, the rundown of Andersons, the rundown of Plessey, the rundown of Clydesdale, and the rundown of Cummins in Scotland—all those firms have announced redundancies within the past few days with a total loss in one day yesterday of 1,000 jobs—all part of the same "silver lining"?
Will the Minister stand outside the jobcentre today in my constituency or those of my hon. Friends—indeed, those in many Conservative Members' constituencies—and tell hundreds of workers who are having to sign on for the first time that there is no recession in Scotland and the north-east?
Will the Secretary of State come to my constituency or to others to say that our recessionary problems refer to
some dim and distant time in 1981"?
Is he really saying that people are being made redundant throughout the country—in the north, north-west, Yorkshire, Wales and Scotland—because we are still enjoying that economic miracle?
Ministers told us that there was an economic miracle when there was not. Now they insist on telling us that there is no recession in much of the country, when we know there is. How can we trust them with the future, when they deny the problems of the present and of the past?
I thought that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had no policies for the recession because he was ideologically inclined against any Government action at all. Now I know that he has no such policies because he does not believe that in much of the country there is a recession. The last Trade and Industry Secretary but one was praised because it was said that he did not bring problems, but solutions. This Trade and Industry Secretary cannot bring solutions, because he cannot even admit that there are problems.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman is talking about denying the policies of the past, but why is it that, in the past, when the Labour party was in power, this country's share of world trade went down year after year, whereas now, with the present Government in power, we have maintained our share of world trade?

Mr. Brown: I think that the hon. Gentleman must have the wrong briefing note from Conservative central office. Whatever the hon. Gentleman says, the fact of the matter is that, under Labour, our share of manufacturing in world trade went up and under this Conservative Government that share has gone down substantially. If the Secretary of State or any other Conservative Member wants to correct me, I shall be happy to give way at this point.

Mr. Keith Mans: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that that is the case, will he quote the figures to the House?

Mr. Brown: In 1979, our share of manufacturing world trade was roughly 10 per cent., and now it is about 8 per cent. I shall give the hon. Gentleman the figures during the debate if he asks me again.
Let me tell the Secretary of State about the severity of the recession that he has for so long attempted to deny. When factories up and down the country are already producing less than in 1979—5 per cent. less in chemical engineering, 9 per cent. less in metal products, 26 per cent. less in textiles, 33 per cent. less in man-made fibres; when manufacturing investment has barely increased overall since 1979; when we have lost 2 million jobs in manufacturing, and manufacturing employment is set to fall below 5 million for the first time this century; when, for thousands of factories and companies this is not a downturn on the road to an upturn but a downturn on the road to closure for ever; and when the interest rate bill, as Conservative Members know from their own constituents, was £6 billion in 1979 and is now an astonishing £30 billion for small and large industry throughout the country, this is not, as the Confederation of British Industry confirmed yesterday, merely a recession which is deepening faster than ever, but a recession which is unique to Britain and is happening nowhere else in western Europe.

Sir William Clark: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that manufacturing output since 1979 is about 12 per cent. higher than it was, whereas under the previous Labour Government manufacturing output fell by 2·5 per cent?

Mr. Brown: I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman the correct figure. Manufacturing output, according to the latest account, is up by only 7 per cent. since 1979. In that time it has risen by 18 per cent. in Germany and by nearly 50 per cent. in Japan. That is the real position—we have had the slowest rise in manufacturing output of almost all our major competitors.
This is not a recession for which world conditions, OPEC, the Gulf crisis or the European Community can be blamed. This recession has been designed, fashioned and made in Downing street. We are not in the sixth month of a Europewide recession. Investment is not falling in the European Community; output has not slumped by £5 billion in six months in any other major European country. No other country in western Europe has experienced the same combination of falling orders, falling employment, falling investment and now falling exports.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Does the hon. Gentleman now regret his commitment to the pound's entry into the exchange rate mechanism, which has resulted in interest rates remaining high?

Mr. Brown: Not at all. I think that many Conservative Members were unhappy about the party-political advantage that the Chancellor tried to extract from entry at the time; but what Labour said before, during and after the event was that ERM entry must be accompanied by a proper policy for industry, so that we can make the commitment to training, technology and regional economic development that has been made by all our competitors that are also in the ERM.

Mr. Budgen: What about the question?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman may think that he asked me a different question, but I replied to the question that he asked me.

Mr. James Paice: May I remind the hon. Gentleman of what my hon. Friend said? The Opposition motion refers to the need for an
immediate reduction in interest rates".
I assume that the hon. Gentleman believes in that; but, given his and my support for the exchange rate mechanism, how will that be possible unless—as the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) pointed out—the pound is allowed to fall outside the ERM brackets?

Mr. Brown: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is advancing the proposition that interest rates can never be reduced within the exchange rate mechanism, but let me tell him that the question whether they should fall now is a matter of judgment; and I prefer the judgment of my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to that of the Conservative Ministers who have failed the country over the past few years.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us have one hon. Member on his feet at a time.

Mr. Brown: I will not give way again.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Lilley): The hon. Gentleman said that he preferred the judgment of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). Can he name any occasion on which his right hon. and learned Friend has not believed that interest rates should be cut?

Mr. Brown: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what happened in 1988, if that is what he is referring to. In 1988, we advocated a cut in interest rates, but what we did not advocate was a Budget that put money into the economy in a way that was geared disproportionately towards the higher income earners.

Mr. John Biffen: rose—

Mr. Brown: I must make some progress. I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman later.
All over Europe, employment in the manufacturing industries is rising. It is rising by nearly 1 per cent. in France, and by 3·5 per cent. in Germany; it is falling, uniquely, in Britain by 1·4 per cent. This from the party that told us that it had brought an employment miracle. Unemployment is now rising faster here than in any of our major European competitors.
In western Europe, manufacturing output is moving ahead. It is moving ahead by 4 per cent. in Germany, by 3 per cent. in France and by 3 per cent. in Europe as a whole; but it is falling, uniquely, in Britain. It is rising in almost every country except Conservative Britain. This from the party that promised not an economic recession, but an economic miracle.
Let us look at investment for the future. In Europe, business investment is rising by 4·9 per cent. in both Germany and France, by 4 per cent. in Italy and by 3 per cent. in Europe as a whole, and by 6 per cent. in Japan. It

is falling, uniquely, in Britain—by 3 per cent. according to the latest OECD estimate. This from the party that said that it was presiding over an investment miracle, rather than the investment collapse that we are now experiencing.
We are the only European country where investment is falling in the run-up to 1992—the only country which faces the harsher conditions of the single European market with less investment this year than last, and less investment last year than the year before. This is not a Europewide recession but a British recession, made in Britain by the mistakes of Conservative Ministers.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: The hon. Gentleman seems to take great delight from talking down this country. If our record is so disastrous, as he likes to suggest, why have 700 foreign companies decided to invest in the west midlands, the heart of the United Kingdom? Why did not they go elsewhere?

Mr. Brown: Of course we welcome foreign investment in Britain. It is unfortunate that the Department of Trade and Industry is selling Britain abroad as a low-wage country. We welcome foreign investment in Britain, but what worries me is that jobs are being lost not only in foreign companies but in domestic companies right, left and centre up and down the country. If we are to keep jobs in foreign and domestic firms, we shall have to tackle the problems that they face. That is precisely what we propose to do.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: rose—

Mr. Brown: I have given way many times.
What do the Government propose to do? When the Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he gave an interview to the Financial Times on how the problem could be solved, what way out he saw and how difficult it would be to change things. His perhaps inadvertent use of a marine metaphor was revealing. He said that sorting out the problem was
like turning the Titanic round, as you know.
He will agree that the choice of the Titanic was an unfortunate simile in more ways than one. As every schoolboy knows, the Titanic was not for turning. It hit an iceberg at 20 knots and sank. By the time they tried to turn it, it was too late.
This recession, as the Prime Minister surely knows, did not happen by accident. Its origins are neither remote nor mysterious. To understand it and how it began, we must ask who were the most influential economic Ministers when, in 1987 and 1988, the policies about which we warned were being developed and implemented. There is much talk of the part played by the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), who is now the scapegoat in the wilderness and is punished for his sins with his three directorships, one non-executive chairmanship and a reputed income of £5,000 a day from his part-time employment.
Are we seriously being asked to believe that even he could undermine a whole economy single handed? Even the most cursory investigation of the events leading up to the remarkable Budget of 1988, the consequences of which still haunt us, reveal the identity of the principal collaborators. Where were the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at the time of the events that led up to the recession? Can they account for their movements in the second week of January 1988? Were not they at that


great Budget weekend when the 1988 Budget was being planned? Did not they support the then Chancellor, who is now the scapegoat? Were not they persuaded at the time? Did not they enthusiastically defend that Budget?
Who was Economic Secretary to the Treasury in the early spring of 1988? None other than the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Who was Financial Secretary to the Treasury? None other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is now at No. 11 Downing street. Who was the Chief Secretary to the Treasury? None other than the Prime Minister, who is now at No. 10.
Did that gang of three have no influence? Are they entirely blameless for what went wrong? Did not they bask in the brief glory of that giddy post-Budget spring, telling us that they had created an economic miracle? Do they seriously ask us to believe that the departure of the right hon. Member for Blaby somehow exonerates them from responsibility? Let there be no doubt about it: they are, as the poll tax legislation puts it, "jointly and severally responsible" before, during and after the fact.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brown: No.

Mr. Oppenheim: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) is not giving way.

Mr. Brown: I have given way to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) in every debate in which we have discussed this matter and I have tried to remind him of the Conservative party manifesto commitment that inflation would be reduced substantially under a Conservative Government.
The great tragedy for Britain is that the Treasury Ministers who failed in the past now comprise the Prime Minister's economic team which is supposed to lead us into the future. Those people told us that they had created an economic miracle, that Britain had achieved a dramatic economic transformation and that manufacturing industry was a Labour obsession. They told us that an industry policy was not necessary and that the trade deficit was of no consequence and had nothing to do with competitiveness.
Those were the people who, with the Prime Minister, told us that, while Britain had envied Germany during the 1960s and 1970s, the position was now entirely reversed. Do those people have any credibility now when they come to us and say that they have solutions to the problems that they have caused? They denied that there was a recession, but there is one; they said that it was not severe, but it is; and they claimed that it was happening elsewhere, but it is not. Try as they might to blame external events and to find scapegoats, they cannot blame anyone but themselves.
The failures are not just failures of economic mismanagement over the past three years. There has been a complete failure of industry policy over the past eleven and a half years. The problem is one not just of the mismanagement of demand in the short term, but of the failure to bring adequate industrial capacity over the long term.
Our complaint is that a short-term consumer boom was bound to be unsustainable and lead to higher imports,

higher interest rates and pressures on inflation simply because that consumer boom was not underpinned by long-term adequate investment.
The real problem is not just that demand grew too fast because of the sins of commission such as the 1988 Budget, but that our capacity has grown too slowly because of the sins of omission—the absence of a policy for industry. How else do we explain the fact that, in Britain, industrial production has increased by only 12 per cent. and manufacturing output by only 7 per cent.? However, with demand increasing by 40 per cent. over the past eleven and a half years, imports have increased by 65 per cent. and manufacturing imports by 236 per cent.
No wonder Britain now has a manufacturing economy that has fallen behind France and Italy and is falling to the size of Brazil. No wonder Germany now exports three times as many manufactured goods as Britain. No wonder the production of electric motors, transformers, tractors, ships and lorries has halved over the past 10 years. No wonder Britain now imports 3 million computers a year and 2 billion microchips.

Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for officials to be briefing a Conservative Back Bencher?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is being briefed, but he is not on my list to be called.

Mr. Brown: I do not know how many Parliamentary Private Secretaries the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry possesses.
No wonder we face this position after 11 years. I was asked earlier about our share of world trade. In 1974, our share of world trade was 8·5 per cent. By 1979, our manufacturing share had risen to 9·1 per cent. and the latest figure available shows that it is back to 8·2 per cent. That is an appalling record of performance in world trade. No wonder we have a massive manufacturing deficit.
The tragedy is that, without a policy for industry, this recession, which has been caused by Ministers, is merely the interval between making mistakes in one short-terns consumer boom and repeating them in another.
It is Labour's case—a case which the Government resist —that we cannot solve industry's deep-seated problems unless we have an industry policy with the Government and industry working in partnership to secure specific objectives in training, in technology and in securing balanced economic development.
The key feature of Government policy is that, even as the gap with our competitors widens, they ignore the problem, do very little, and almost always too late. In every case, the barrier to their acting is their crude free market ideology. Let use consider what needs to be done.

Sir William Clark: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brown: I have given way on numerous occasions. We must make some progress. The right hon. Gentleman will have plenty of time to make his contribution later.
Let us consider what needs to be done when more young people leave school early; when more young people are without qualifications, when there are fewer people in the workplace with qualifications; when we have fewer college and university students than Korea and the number is falling to the level of Taiwan; when the Government's own head of training admitted that, at every


level, we are towards the bottom of the training league table, whether in education, youth training, higher level skills training or management training; when Lord Tombs, who advises the Prime Minister on economic matters, said that normal market forces cannot solve the problem; and when we are in the unique situation of having the fastest rising unemployment of our major competitors and yet skill shortages in our labour force, underpinned by cuts in the training budget over the next three years—

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: rose—

Sir William Clark: rose—

Mr. Brown: I am not giving way. I have made that absolutely clear. I want to make some progress. I have given way on many occasions.
We need to implement Labour's policy—a national training strategy, clear targets set by industry working with Government and locally delivered, a guarantee of high-quality training for every young person and a working environment in which all employers are obliged to train so that the good firms are not undercut by the bad firms and the firms that train do not lose out to those who poach. What do the Government do? They insist on continuing the crude free market approach that has clearly failed, instead of pursuing the successful policy for change that exists elsewhere in our competitor countries.
It makes absolutely no sense to have a situation in our national economy in which some regions are growing at half the rate of others. It makes no sense to have congestion, pollution and pressure on the green belt in one part of the country and forced emigration from the other. Germany and Italy recognise that they need to spend more on regional policy and that the task is to modernise it, not to abandon it. It is absolutely clear that Labour's policy—the creation of regional development agencies, the targeting of regional investment incentives on training and technology, the encouragement to banks and venture capital funds to work in the regions with those development agencies to build and strengthen them—is not only successfully pursued elsewhere but is right for Britain.
When that is the case, what does the Department of Trade and Industry, which is charged with responsibility for regional policy, actually do? The Secretary of State went along to the famous House of Lords Select Committee. When he was asked whether he was doing all that he practically could in regional policy, was his answer that more resources might be provided if the cash was available and that, if the problem was greater, he would provide more? Would more resources be available if the need could be proven? No. He said that the Government were doing everything that they could—no turning back from the regional aid cuts that have characterised the Government. He will do absolutely nothing.
It is worse than that. When we had the 1988 regional review, we were promised that DTI spending on the regions would increase and that the replacement for regional development grants and regional enterprise grants would lead to the expenditure of considerable sums of money. Of the £42 million that was budgeted for the

new grants, only £9 million has actually been spent after two years. That is less than £1 in every £4 promised. Yet the Secretary of State says that he is doing all that he can.
Is it not the case that the Department of Trade and Industry is now dominated by three Ministers who are all members of the No Turning Back group? I refer to the Secretary of State, the Minister of State and the Minister with responsibility for regional policy. Not for them that the Government should do what they can as a matter of practical help; for them, the Government should do as little as possible as a matter of dogma. Is it not the case that, at every point at which the Government should be enabling industry to succeed, the Department of Trade and Industry is doing absolutely nothing? We should consider the programmes.

Mr. Michael Grylls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brown: I am not giving way.
When we need incentives to invest in civil research, when we need technology transfer within our regions, when we need more small firms to be encouraged to undertake research and development, and when we need the market research schemes that the Government abandoned, what do the Government do? Over the past four years, they have abandoned almost every successful initiative, not because they have failed but because it is not in the Government's interests to prove that schemes that can help industry should work.
When we now have the recommendations from the CBI for a technology policy to help small firms; when we have the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Science and Technology—the scientific advisers to the Government—that biotechnology and opto-electronics need Government support; when we have the view of the Trade and Industry Select Committee that information technology should be accorded some priority; and when the DTI's own innovation advisory board advises the Minister about the chronic short-termism of the City, is it not the case that, even during a recession, even as we face the challenges of 1992, the Secretary of State is presiding over some of the severest cuts in the industry budget to have taken place for a decade? We have had an 18 per cent. cut this year—27 per cent. cumulatively over two years, 36 per cent. over the three-year planning period.
The Government are not cutting administrative fat; indeed, they are spending millions moving into some of the most expensive office space in London. They are not cutting bureaucracy; even as responsibilities are abandoned, the amount spent on administration has risen to 23 per cent. of the budget. Given that the Secretary of State's right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health wants to intervene against the health service, whose administrative costs are 5 per cent., what does he say now that the budget costs for administration have been allowed to rise to 23 per cent?
What the Government are actually cutting is technology transfer—by 22 per cent.—expenditure on research and development and support for innovation. All these things have been considered by all-party Committees, and, in my view, the House of Lords Select Committee, with the evidence that it now has, will make certain recommendations. These cuts are being made not


because industry does not need help during a recession —it does—but because, as a matter of dogma, the Government have decided that nothing should be done.
Apparently the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), when he went through the doors of the DTI, asked what the place was for. The right hon. Member for Southend West, (Mr. Channon), one of his predecessors, said that he did not know what an industry policy was. Of course, Lord Young put his view on record as he departed. In 1988 he said that in the DTI the drive to improve industrial enterprise was over. The DTI, Lord Young said, had become a bore; there was nothing left to be done—a "do nothing" Department, as defined by Lord Young. Yet, even as we approach 1992, what we are seeing under the new Secretary of State is not a modification of the reductions in support but an intensification of them. I can think of no other country in Europe where the budgets for training and for industry are being simultaneously cut, yet it is Britain where industry, because of the recession, is doing worst of all.
What is the reality? Ministers have responsibility for the regions, but they are cutting the budgets for the regions; Ministers in the Department of Employment have responsibility for training, but they are able to cut back on support for training; Ministers have responsibility for technology, but their policy is to cut back on support for technology; Ministers accept the responsibility for industrial research and development, but their policy is to run down support for such research and development. Whereas, in other countries, industrial policy is about Governments working in partnership with industry—taking practical measures to build industrial performance —in this country industrial policy is about the Government withdrawing support for industry as a matter for ideology, no matter what the consequences for businesses up and down the country.
In eleven and a half years the Department of Industry has had nine leaders, but no leadership at all. Does anybody believe that, if the Department of Industry had not existed, the present Government would have created it? The message of the last few weeks—since the change of Prime Minister—is that one can change the leadership at the top, and one can change even the style and the rhetoric, but one cannot persuade people that one has changed unless one changes policy. Doing nothing, even with a new face at the top of the DTI, is still doing nothing; inactivity, even with expensive public relations, is still inactivity; dogma, even under new management, is still dogma.
We have had eleven and a half years, at the end of which inflation is more than 9 per cent., whereas the Government promised that it would be zero; eleven and a half years, at the end of which it seems a matter for self-congratulation to Ministers that the trade deficit is £16 billion, a figure unparalleled before the present Government came to power; eleven and a half years, at the end of which the Government have consistently failed to address the long-term problems that they claim to have solved in their first few years; eleven and a half years of squandering £100 billion of North Sea oil revenues, with no thought of tomorrow; eleven and a half years in which they have systematically denied industry the support and co-operation that our competitors give their industry. We have ended up with the worst interest rates, the highest inflation, the biggest trade gap, the slowest growth, the lowest investment and the fastest rising unemployment of our major European competitors.
The recession is the fault of the Government. The recession is unique to Britain in western Europe. It is the direct responsibility of Ministers. That is an unanswerable case. It is also an unanswerable case that Britain needs a long-term policy for industry which backs our people, our skills and our inventiveness and does so in every part of the country. That is the industry policy which the Conservative party cannot support because of dogma and therefore they will lose the election. It is the policy which Labour demands for Britain, and that is why we shall win.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Lilley): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'congratulates Her Majesty's Government on policies which have transformed economic performance and, over the last decade, achieved a faster rate of output and investment growth than in Germany, France and Italy, the largest increase in manufacturing productivity of any major industrial country, record levels of exports, a record number of businesses, the highest ever number of people in work and an unemployment rate below the average of the European Community; welcomes the threefold increase in shareholders since 1979; and commends the resolve of Her Majesty's Government to bear down on inflation and to continue with the supply side policies which have contributed to these achievements.'.
As I have listened to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) at the Dispatch Box over the years, I have learnt respect for his considerable talents. Above all, I have recognised that his principal skill, which he deployed with effect today, is to depict gloom and predict doom. Unfortunately, for the bulk of the period during which he has been in Parliament, the British economy has outstripped even our strongest competitors in Europe and his skills have failed to carry conviction when he has attempted to paint a picture of gloom. Now that industry faces a severe slowdown in demand—I recognise that it does—the hon. Gentleman is in his element.
However, I do not propose to dispute in detail the picture that the hon. Gentleman painted of the current position. I want to concentrate on his attempt at a diagnosis, his attempt at a prognosis and his attempt at a prescription to cure the illness of which he complains. The hon. Gentleman scarcely spelled out a proper diagnosis of what is wrong with the British economy.
The real disease from which we suffer is inflation. Inflation is an evil not only in itself, because it penalises the weakest and poorest sections of society—the old, the sick and those on fixed incomes—but because it creates further evils by eroding competitiveness and destroying jobs, savings and the incentive to invest. In turn, inflation is the consequence of excessive demand—demand which grows faster than output. Its cure must inevitably involve a period of slower growth of demand. When monetary demand outstrips output, prices are bid up and costs are allowed to increase. When monetary demand is slowed down, prices and costs are put under intense pressure. That process is painful but essential, and it is what is happening at present.
On a previous occasion, I challenged the hon. Gentleman to say whether he believed that inflation could be curbed without a slowdown in demand. Has he yet found an answer to that question? Does Labour have a painless solution to the problem of inflation? 1 take it from his silence that it does not.
Although the hon. Gentleman's diagnosis was pretty hazy, not to say non-existent, his prediction of what would happen from now on was clear, but wrong. He believes that the economy is set to spiral downwards into a prolonged slump. But we should discount his predictions, for three reasons. First, he does not realise that the very severity of the slowdown in demand means that price inflation will be curbed more sharply than would otherwise be the case.
One inflation has slowed down, the Chancellor will be able to reduce interest rates, and non-inflationary growth will resume. Indeed, the reduction of inflation itself will provide the economy with a stimulus. What is more, the reforms that we have introduced to the labour market over the years, coupled with a pegged exchange rate, will result in a more rapid response of pay costs to this slowdown than we have seen in previous cycles.
The second reason why I found the hon. Gentleman's gloomy outlook and forecast unacceptable is that his forecasts have invariably proved wrong in the past.

Mr. Gordon Brown: What about the Government's?

Mr. Lilley: He is happy to quote other peoples' forecasts, but he is a little disturbed when people quote his forecasts back to him. In 1986, he wrote in The Guardian:
In 1990 around 3·12 million of us will still be unemployed … The Government simply cannot reduce unemployment by present economic policies.
The fact is that unemployment in this country is substantially lower than the average of our European partners; under the Labour Government, it was higher than the average of the European Community.
Earlier, in February 1974, the hon. Gentleman told the House:
there is no evidence that economic recovery is in sight."—[Official Report, 15 February 1984, Vol. 54, c. 316.]
We know that that was three years into the recovery from that recession.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Before my hon. Friend came to the House of Commons.

Mr. Lilley: It was in 1984; I am so sorry.
Thirdly, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East does not seem to recognise that although inflation is a nasty disease, the British economy is fundamentally much healthier than when it faced recessions in the early 1970s and early 1980s. It will continue to thrive once inflation has been curbed. Let me give the House a few indicators of how dramatically the economy has improved in strength and vigour over the last decade.
The hon. Gentleman always focuses on manufacturing. Manufacturing output fell under the Labour Government; it has risen substantially under this Government. Indeed, in the 1980s as a whole, it rose by about a quarter, which was faster than the rise in Germany, France and Italy.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: What is happening now?

Mr. Lilley: If the hon. Gentleman wants to know, previous economic slowdowns have always been led by manufacturing, and manufacturing has suffered the greatest fall in output. They have also been led by the regions and by Scotland. The difference between this slowdown and its predecessors is that manufacturing has

suffered less, the regions and Scotland have suffered less, and the concentration has been on areas of the economy which are most heavily borrowed—the housing market, the south-east and, compared with other slowdowns, the service industries.

Mr. Grocott: Can the Secretary of State tell us what the level of manufacturing output will be in six months' time, on present estimates, in comparison with what it was in 1979?

Mr. Lilley: As I have acknowledged, we are going through a severe slowdown in demand. However, the hon. Member is typical of his party in taking a short-term view. I am dealing with the performance of the economy and the improvement in its health over a decade.

Mr. Alex Salmond: The Secretary of State says that the Scottish economy is doing well in the recession. He knows the great concern that there is in Scotland about the fate of the steel industry. Can he and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is sitting beside him, confirm that they have the power, if they so choose, to refer the steel industry to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? The Secretary of State need not be impeded by the view of the Director General of Fair Trading, any more than he was last month, when, against the advice of the director general, he referred the bid for AMOCO refining assets by Elf Aquitaine to the M MC.

Mr. Lilley: References can be made only on the basis of concrete complaints of specific infringements of competition rules. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts that Scotland's economy is suffering relatively less than the rest of the economy, particularly compared with past slowdowns.
The other great change in manufacturing industry is that productivity, once our weakest spot, has increased enormously. It rose by 60 per cent. during the past decade, which is faster than any other major industrialised country, including Japan—a happy contrast to two decades when we were at the bottom of the league.
Let us also look at the performance of exports, which tells the same story of increasing strength over the decade. Manufacturing exports are at record levels with volume nearly 60 per cent. higher than in 1980.

Mr. Roger King: My right hon. Friend will know that, last year, the British motor industry increased its exports by 44·7 per cent. over the 1989 figure. Definite progress is being made. That is discounting the fact that the Ford motor company did not commence exporting cars until last December.

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a good point, which illustrates a widespread phenomenon. Manufacturing industry is now both more competitive and more flexible. It is increasingly able to replace weak home demands by finding increased export sales abroad. The motor car industry has seen a reduction in domestic sales, but it has almost fully offset that by increasing exports by nearly a half. In December, exports were up 125 per cent. on the previous year. That reflects the return to exporting by Ford, the first exports from Ellesmere Port in 15 years and the arrival of Japanese manufacturers in this country.
Another source of strength in the past decade has been the take-off of the enterprise culture. There are now some 400,000 more firms in this country than there were in 1980.


Some are facing difficulties, which the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East highlighted. Despite the high interest rates of the past year, the number of new businesses created during that period has exceeded the number merging or closing down.
The biggest transformation in our economy in the past decade has been in industrial relations. During the whole post-war period, that was our greatest weakness. We were notorious for strikes, stoppages and industrial disputes. Last year saw the lowest number of industrial disputes for 50 years. That is a substantial improvement in the underlying strength of the British economy.
Perhaps the clearest indicator of the improved climate for manufacturing industry in particular, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) said, is the willingness and eagerness of foreign industry to locate its plants here. It would not do so if the economic analysis of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East were correct. The fact is that United States direct investment in the United Kingdom exceeds that in West Germany, France and Holland combined. It has grown by more than 70 per cent. in the past 5 years. Japan has nearly twice as much direct investment in the United Kingdom as in any other European Community state.
The investment has come not only in the car sector, with three major Japanese car firms choosing to place their European operations in Britain, but in consumer electronics, electronic components, bearings and machine tools.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Secretary of State must be concerned about the type of investment that takes place when money is put into companies only to buy them out. Despite good industrial relations and high productivity, some companies are closed down and sold off. That has happened in the whisky and tobacco industries. The Hanson organisation has a deplorable record on that. Surely the Secretary of State must recognise that some of the investment is involved in asset stripping. What will he do about that?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman's example most certainly does not refer to foreign investment in this country. One cannot fossilise the distribution of a particular industrial capacity at any one moment. We must allow firms to expand by acquisition, subject to our competitive rules, if need be.
Foreign investment in this country is an indicator of our attraction for manufacturing and industry in general. It is true that even within the Community we are attracting investment from other Community countries. In recent years, West Germany has invested more in the United Kingdom than in any other country. Do Opposition Members, or any hon. Members, seriously believe that Nissan, Toyota, Bosch and many others would have come to this country to invest if we had suffered the policies advocated and pursued by the Labour Party and previous Labour Governments?

Mr. Ian McCartney: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the foreign companies he has named have come to Britain because of the direct involvement of Labour local authorities? Those companies have invested in various regions of Britain and Scotland because of the direct efforts of Labour local authorities, which have redoubled their attempts to create new

employment opportunities. The truth is that Labour local authorities have brought foreign investment into the United Kingdom.

Mr. Lilley: When I went to Japan the week before last, I spoke to many representatives of Japanese companies that have invested or are thinking about investing in this country. Not one said that the principle attraction, or any attraction, was provided by Labour local authorities.

Mr. David Clelland: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman did not speak to anyone from Nissan or Komatsu who regularly acknowledge the contribution made by the former Tyne and Wear county council when reaching their decision to invest in that area?

Mr. Lilley: I spoke to people from those companies. I am not saying that they have not got on with local authorities, but they simply did not list them as one of the attractions of this country.

Mr. Michael Grylls: My right hon. Friend is right to quote the success of inward investment, but it is equally revealing to study one of the most important British firms, British Steel. Under the Labour Government, that company was losing £500 million a year and it employed three people for every job. Now, however, it is competitive and it is making nearly £500 million a year. Does my right hon. Friend agree that British Steel is almost the best example that one could quote to prove that, if one gets the conditions right, industry is able to prosper?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a great strength of this country that we now have a steel industry that is one of the most profitable in the world, not excluding the steel industry of Japan. The Leader of the Opposition may want to interfere in the operations of British Steel, but we would prefer it to continue its healthy course since privatisation.
The diagnosis proffered by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East was hazy, his prognosis wrong, and his prescription about as hard to decipher as that issued by the average doctor. I listened hard when he said, "Now I come to the measures we must take." I found it difficult to decipher the meaning of his message. Instead of a spot-the-ball competition, we are faced with a spot-the policy one—the hon. Gentleman's hand points in one: direction, but his eyes are looking in another. The one place one knows those policies will not be found is on firm ground. They will be somewhere up in the air, probably in the hot air, because those policies consist of phrases such as "encouragement for," "a regional policy" or "priority must be given"—there is no specification behind those words.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: My right hon. Friend will recall that, as part of his prescription for the future, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) spoke about the importance of training. Can my right hon. Friend recall any instance in the past few years when the Labour party has supported any training initiative? The theory does not match the practice. The hon. Gentleman talks about encouraging young people to get qualifications, but my right hon. Friend will recall the Labour party's total opposition to the youth training scheme and employment training. In my area, the Labour party is strongly opposed


to the training and enterprise council, where industry works with business and the Government. Can my right hon. Friend think of an occasion when the Labour party supported a training initiative?

Mr. Lilley: I am afraid that I cannot recall an occasion when the Labour party took a positive attitude towards any of the initiatives we have taken.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East also appeared to be unaware of some existing policies. He proudly proclaimed that he intended to introduce a guaranteed training programme for school leavers. Apparently he is unaware that it already exists, in the form of the youth training scheme and its successors.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that every school leaver is automatically guaranteed training? That is not true.

Mr. Lilley: We have guaranteed that school leavers who cannot find jobs will have access to training programmes—

Mr. Brown: Are Conservative Members and the right hon. Gentleman unaware that 100,000 young people leave school and get a job with no training whatever?

Mr. Lilley: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that people will have to do a training course when they leave school instead of having the option, that represents an interesting reversal of Labour's previous opposition to the schemes that we have set up.
The Opposition had one solution to all our problems: entering the exchange rate mechanism. I thought that their policy was still to maintain our membership of the ERM, but it seems from what they are calling for now that they would abandon it—because that is what a devaluation of sterling would amount to, and devaluation would be the inevitable result of their calls for a premature cut in interest rates or for increases in public expenditure.
The Opposition claimed to recognise that the exchange rate mechanism had the virtue of encouraging stability and discipline, but they now seem willing to forgo that stability and abandon that discipline. Instead, they give us vague references to the need for training, research and development and regional support. I have scanned about 15 speeches by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East; in each of them he said that he wants new policies for training, R and D and regional support—but those policies remain as elusive as ever. What is more, the hon. Gentleman has not spelt out whether the Opposition would increase public expenditure, and if they would, by how much and when.

Mr. Harry Cohen: The Secretary of State went off the exchange rate mechanism rather quickly. What is his assessment of the impact of entry into the ERM, at the crazy rate at which the Government entered, on industry and unemployment?

Mr. Lilley: The exchange rate of DM2·95 means that we remain roughly within the 6 per cent. band against the Deutschmark for the three years before entry. So the entry rate was exactly in line with what industy had been coping with for the previous three years, during which time it had greatly increased exports, thus showing that it was not uncompetitive. If the Labour party claims that we should

devalue after we have been in the EMS for a matter of a few months, that is interesting. I say that devaluation would be the inevitable consequence of the policies proposed by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East and of his reckless disregard for the constraints that the exchange rate imposes on freedom of action in the matter of interest rates.

Mr. Kinnock: What is the main reason why the Government keep interest rates at the highest levels of any developed country? Is it that they fear that, if they were to reduce them, as industry needs, there would be a substantial fall in the value of the pound against the deutschmark?

Mr. Lilley: I am saying that a premature reduction in interest rates would be unwise—

Mr. Gordon Brown: Why?

Mr. Lilley: I accept the judgment of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, just as the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East said that he would accept the judgment of his right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor, which was that we could cut interest rates now with no impact on the exchange rate. At no time has the right hon. and learned Gentleman advocated anything other than a reduction in interest rates. His advice is so one-sided as scarcely to constitute good judgment.

Mr. Budgen: My right hon. Friend says that he will accept the judgment of the Chancellor on when it is safe to reduce interest rates. Is it not inevitable that the people who really decide when it is safe to reduce them will be foreign holders of sterling; and that he will rely most of all on the judgment, first, of the Governor of the Bank of England and, more importantly perhaps, of other European central bankers, who will say, according to their knowledge of foreign speculators, when it is safe to reduce interest rates?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend's concern about speculators, given his well-known desire to rely on an exchange rate in which speculation is allowed free rein, is interesting. The House decided, with the support of Members on the Opposition Front Bench, that we would enhance our anti-inflationary posture by pegging our exchange rate against those of the continent. In my judgment, that increases downward pressure on inflation, and as a result we shall more rapidly reduce inflation and thus in turn be able to reduce interest rates and return to non-inflationary growth. But a premature reduction of interest rates, in or out of the exchange rate mechanism, would not benefit the economy because it would mean that, far from our getting inflation down, it would take off again.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the right hon. Gentleman expand on this point, as it is critical? Is he saying that, because of the downward pressure on demand, as he delicately puts it, imposed by high interest rates, inflation will eventually fall roughly to German levels, and such will be the confidence in the international markets that the pound will stay at DM2·95 regardless of the fact that interest rates in Britain are much lower?

Mr. Lilley: I am not sure what the purpose of this little seminar is. The right hon. Gentleman may have forgotten that he has advocated our membership of the system—

Mr. Gordon Brown: So has the right hon. Gentleman himself.

Mr. Lilley: I have advocated it since I have been a member of the Government, since 1987.
The whole purpose of membership is to enable us to get inflation down and as a result have lower interest rates. I am not sure what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to elicit beyond that.

Mr. Oppenheim: Does not my right hon. Friend find it rather strange that, only a year ago, the Leader of the Opposition was saying that we had to have high interest rates because we were not in the ERM, but that now he is saying the opposite: because we are in it, we have to keep interest rates high?

Mr. Lilley: Like my hon. Friend, I find the position adopted by the Leader of the Opposition a little difficult to follow.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East offered increased spending on training as his magic solution to all our problems. He was prepared to contemplate that increased training even though it would come from a levy. He ignored the fact that the Government are spending two and a half times as much as the Labour Government did on vocational training—a clear sign that the last Labour Government did not attach the priority to the subject that this Government do. Industry is also spending a great deal more on training. It is estimated that it is spending £20 billion a year on it. That is made possible by the improvement in profitability of British industry, which is our key to improvement in the strength of British industry.
The Opposition have never spelt out, when challenged, whether and when they will provide more money for the policies that they advocate. When challenged directly on that point, Labour's spokesman admits that industrial support is not one of the key priorities to which the party is committed and on which it will immediately increase expenditure. Expenditure on training, research and development and regional policy, would, say the Opposition, be increased only as and when new resources become available.
The Opposition are in a logical bind. Are Labour policies necessary to generate faster growth, or is faster growth necessary to afford Labour's policies? They have to explain on which side of the dilemma they have come down.

Mr. Roger King: I shall not vote for them.

Mr. Lilley: That is a relief to us all.
By contrast, the Government's policies and priorities are consistent and clear. Above all, we believe that it is essential to persist with the cure for the underlying problem of inflation, painful though that cure is in the short term, and to reinforce the supply side measures that will enhance the long-term health of our industry. These measures include further deregulation, taking forward the reforms that we have already introduced with such good effect into industries such as telecommunications. They include the encouragement of competition, to act as a stimulus to growth and improved performance.
They include privatisation, where our programme of setting businesses free from the shackle of state control will not stop at the 42 major businesses that have so far been liberated. The success of this programme, under which virtually every privatised company has increased its

revenue, its profitability and its investment and improved its investor relations, means that we should pursue that policy further.
Our measures also include reduction in taxes, whenever conditions permit, and this has been an important part of strengthening our industrial position. We shall continue with it as and when it is prudent to do so. Without lower taxes, we should not have had increased investment in enterprise, and without that there would not have been the new businesses and the reduction in unemployment that we have seen since 1983.
Wider share ownership is a key part of our programme, particularly employee share ownership, which, combined with our trade union reform, has brought about enormous improvements in our labour relations. Perhaps the most significant of all these is reducing the barriers to trade facing our industry, both within Europe and in the wider world, and maintaining a stable international trading system. That is why we attach high importance to the completion of the internal market—a factor not mentioned by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East—and the opening up of eastern Europe, which will provide immense opportunities for British businesses.
GATT has served us well for the past 40 years. Industrial tariffs have come down from about 40 per cent. in 1947 to around 5 per cent. and, over the same period, world trade has increased by more than eight times.

Mr. Roger King: My right hon. Friend is saying that our industrial and commercial position is one of a world player, a necessary component of which is the ability to move capital about the world. Would he care to reflect on the effect that any Labour policy for reintroducing exchange control would have on company growth?

Mr. Lilley: I have heard the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, say that he would try to stop speculative flows. That would not be possible under the capital liberalisation directive within Europe, let alone within our wider agreement. I imagine that the Labour party has abandoned any proposal for the restriction of trade and imports.
GATT is a key part of our strategy for increasing the opportunities for British industry. We have done all in our power to ensure the success of the Uraguay round because Britain, as a prime trading nation, stands to gain more from success and to lose more from failure than most other countries. Liberalisation of trade in services could boost world trade in services by 10 per cent. Rules on intellectual property would stem the huge losses from counterfeiting and piracy which cost United Kingdom drug and textile companies some £50 million a year and the record industry hundreds of millions of pounds.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East is wrong to say that economic slowdown is being experienced only in this country, because it is strong in the United States, in Canada and in Australasia, and it is beginning to be felt in France and Italy, although Germany and Japan remain buoyant. At a time of world economic slowdown, we need a non-inflationary stimulus. The only thing that can provide that is the opening of markets and the reduction in tariffs that a successful GATT round will bring about.
If we pursue our policies of deregulation, competition and privatisation, and of opening up markets, and if we persist in our policies to defeat inflation, our opportunities in the 1990s will be even greater than those we enjoyed in


the 1980s. The strength that this economy built up during the 1980s will be manifest, and rewards will be reaped during the 1990s. Therefore, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the amendment.

Mr. Biffen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, concerning the proceedings of the debate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, with his customary courtesy, gave way to every hon. Gentleman who wished to intervene. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), by contrast, showed an understandable and virginal reluctance to enagage in parliamentary debate. Will our proceedings record that relevant fact?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The right hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record.

Mr. Tom Pendry: I am sure that I speak for my hon. Friends who represent the north-west when I say that few will begin to understand the speech made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or the world in which he lives. Surely one of the saddest places in Britain is the north-west of England, the birthplace of the industrial revolution and the region that possibly has Britain's finest skilled work force. Many of these people find themselves languishing on the dole with a bleak outlook that gets bleaker by the weeks, thanks to the Government's disastrous economic policies.
The population of the north-west—some 7 million—is the second largest in Britain, after London and the south-east. Its work force, despite the difficulties, contributes to the national economy more than any other British region, except London and the south-east, accounting for around 10 per cent. of gross domestic product and one eighth of the nation's manufacturing output. The north-west is suffering along with the rest of the country but rather more severely than most in the manufacturing sector. I hope that the Secretary of State will listen to a voice from the north-west, because I know that he does not pay much attention to the problems of the region as he goes around.
In the 20-plus years that I have been a Member of Parliament, I have marvelled at the many business men, in my constituency and beyond, who have told me, when I have asked them how they have fared, that they have fared better under a Labour Government. However, when asked how they vote, they invariably say that they vote Tory, for some personal tax gain or other. That attitude is changing and changing fast. More and more, those same business men and women are listening to what my right hon. and hon. Friends are saying about the economic, industrial and employment fronts.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and my hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) are making a deep impression on these people by arguing the case for creating a strong and dynamic economy, for a commitment to training for our young people, our workers and our managers and for making sure that this economic and training strategy is carried out with the Government backing industry rather than getting on its back.
It is no surprise that support for the Government is ebbing, particularly that from small businesses and shopkeepers who mistakenly trusted the Government and were rewarded with the uniform business rate, high inflation and crippling interest rates. Any sane person knows that, given the crucial importance of manufacturing to our nation's future, the Government must do everything they can to give our industrial regions the backing and encouragement they will need if they are to meet the challenges of Europe and beyond. Yet, at the moment, that backing is singularly lacking.
For example, in my local area of Tameside, I hear from almost every quarter—employers, trade unions and local authorities—that the Government are failing us. I hear this message from the north-west chamber of commerce, which recently published a quarterly economic survey, the region's biggest and most comprehensive survey, covering 536 firms in the north-west employing over 87,000 people. That revealed that, for the first time, nearly half the firms surveyed reported that orders and deliveries were down —46 per cent. of firms reported a drop in home orders and 40 per cent. a drop in export orders. That is far from the world of which the Secretary of State has just painted a picture. It is not the result of Labour party research; it comes from those who are traditionally seen as the Conservatives' friends—the business organisations of the north-west.
In a letter that I received only yesterday, the north-west chamber of commerce says:
Industry in the north-west ended the year in a pessimistic mood. Profits, investment and employment are predicted to fall further in 1991. However companies are still reporting skill shortages around the region, thus emphasising the need for training.

Mr. McCartney: Is it not also the case that the National Westminster bank's recent survey of the north-west forecasts an increase in unemployment of more than 50 per cent. between January this year and May next year as a direct result of interest rates and other Government policies?

Mr. Pendry: My hon. Friend is right. I could quote from other surveys of the area. I took a current one, and one to which I hoped Conservative Members would respond, as it consulted many of their former supporters.
What has been the Government's response to the region's needs? They have implemented cuts of £3£32 million—an horrific 25 per cent.—in employment training throughout the Manchester training and enterprise council area. On top of that, they have cut £3·29 million—19 per cent.—from youth training, thus betraying future generations as well as the present. No wonder more and more people are turning to Labour. They know that high-quality training is a vital ingredient of our economic strategy and will deliver the goods.
It is not just business men and women in the north-west who view the present situation and future prospects with alarm. Their pessimism is shared by PA Cambridge Economic Consultants which was commissioned by Manchester TEC early last year to undertake a labour market assessment of the region. It predicted that a startling 13,000 manufacturing jobs will be lost in the Manchester TEC area before 1995 and that 2,900 of those jobs will be lost in Tameside alone—9 per cent. of all its manufacturing employment. On top of that, it predicts a


further loss in the Manchester TEC area of nearly 5,000 jobs in the engineering sector and 3,500 in metals, minerals and chemicals.
My area needs actions not words. However, when I challenged the former Prime Minister to honour the promise made by her Secretary of State for the Environment during the campaign to bring the Olympics to Manchester that the Government would inject £3 billion of investment into the north-west's infrastructure, she could only flounder and say that the Duke of Westminster had great faith in the north-west's infrastructure. Then she went on to renege on that promise, clearly given by the current chairman of the Conservative party, and claimed that no such undertaking to provide investment had been given.
What sort of insult is that to my constituents and to others in the north-west? With the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) happily now departed, I repeat that challenge to her successor. Will he back the north-west and give it the urgently needed and promised investment, or is he determined to carry on the same policies of industrial neglect at No. 10 that he pursued as Chancellor from the house next door?

Mr. Robert Litherland: My hon. Friend puts the case well for the north-west. Does he agree that the recent report from the Building Employers Confederation, which says that the north-west is going into a deep bitter building recession, is an indictment of the Government when there are stockpiles of bricks and when we have unemployed construction workers and homeless people on our streets, particularly in Manchester?

Mr. Pendry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining my point. We all got that message last week from the confederation.
I hear strongly the message from my local council, Tameside, that the Government have failed us. It tells me that, during 1990, just under 1,000 redundancies in Tameside were notified to the Department of Employment, and that figure is itself only a small proportion of those which were not notified.
Using the Department of the Environment's own methods for analysing deprivation, the second largest major area of need in Greater Manchester is the old industrial area which runs from Oldham through the Tameside centres of Ashton, Dukinfield and Hyde. On the Department's own figures, 10 of the 18 wards in that large belt are inside Tameside, yet the Government refuse to grant the council access to urban programme funding to aid urban development. That is amazing. They give aid to smaller areas within Greater Manchester, such as Wigan, Bolton, Oldham and Rochdale—I am not arguing that they should have their funding cut; they need it too—but Tameside's case for aid is overwhelming when compared with those similar areas.
The average wage rate in Tameside is £3·42 per hour —more than 40 per cent. lower than the Greater Manchester average. One area of Tameside that has particular need for aid is the neighbourhood renewal area in Hyde. The council estimates that 600 businesses need to be regenerated within that area alone, yet it does not have access to city grant. Despite the obvious need for aid, the Government refuse to heed the pleas of Tameside council. That is a disgrace and I hope that the Secretary of State listens and changes that.
I hear the message from the trade union organisations and campaign groups in my area that the Government have failed us. They tell me that despite the Government's attempts to blame job losses and closures on high wage demands and restrictive practices, in reality industrial decline has gone hand in hand with the promotion of a "low pay, "low skill and no rights" economy.
The Greater Manchester low pay unit has highlighted the plight of homeworkers in my constituency. One worker in Tameside makes Christmas crackers for just over 2p each. That meant making 70 crackers an hour in the run-up to Christmas for the princely sum of £1·50. The north-west is painfully aware of the urgent need for a commitment to training, funding and urban regeneration. That awareness is spread right across the board. We want commitment to our area—commitment to investment, training and aid.
The Government must act now and give that commitment if they have any economic strategy at all for the north-west. If they do not act to aid the north-west and the rest of the country's manufacturers, they will continue to sow the seeds of their own destruction when election day comes. Let us hope that that day will come before our industries have to reap further the deadly harvest of neglect.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House because I have a throat infection. No doubt it will be welcomed on both sides of the House, as it means that my speech will be much shorter that it would otherwise be. If it is terminated abruptly, I am sure that my hon. Friends will, as usual, take up the threads of what I was saying.
As an industrialist, I declare an interest. Looking round the House I notice, somewhat wryly, that out of 650 Members, only about 20 are present to debate a subject a fundamental importance to Britain's future. The House never pays enough attention to the creation of wealth, yet no doubt it would be nearly full if we were debating the spending of it.
I pay particular tribute to British industry, which is working so well and efficiently in supporting our forces in the Gulf. It is particularly inspiring to see the way in which workers throughout Britain, without thought of their home time, are supporting our forces.
The core of today's debate must be how to increase our economy's competitiveness. Nowhere is that more important than within government itself, enhancing the Government's ability to be an efficient employer by increasing their productivity at all times. Neither the Government nor industry appear to appreciate that the number of school leavers who will be available for employment over the next five years will fall by 20 per cent. Nowhere will that be more significant than in Government Departments, which are the most labour-intensive employers in the country. Unless action is taken soon, the Departments of Health, Social Security, and Employment will all confront a crisis, with Government wages beginning to chase those in outside industry in order to attract scarce labour.
I should like to see an end to some of the in-fighting that occurs in Government agencies, which inhibits British industry's ability to compete throughout the world. In recent days, there has been much publicity about edicts


issued by the Civil Aviation Authority on the concept of open skies at Heathrow, which would involve handing over Tokyo airline routes from British Airways to Virgin Atlantic Airways. That may sound a commendable idea, but it does not recognise that our efficient airline industry will risk being damaged as a consequence of the CAA pursuing its own objectives. I hope that the Department of Trade and Industry will become involved in those negotiations, to ensure that the industry's potential and ability to operate are not harmed by fanciful theories from Kingsway.
I am also concerned about the way in which Oftel views the British telecomunications industry. The review currently before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry reflects more the interest that Oftel has in cutting British Telecom down to size than the need to develop British Telecom and Mercury as players on the stage of world markets. If Oftel's proposals are allowed to progress, they will allow the entry into our own market of American bidders, without the reciprocity that would allow the United Kingdom to compete in the market across the Atlantic. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will also consider it a good idea to get moving with the sale of part of the Government's holding in British Telecom, which is far too large.
I draw attention also to the conflict between the national engineering laboratory, which is a field of seed corn for improving British industry's competitiveness. Its facility at East Kilbride has endured two years of uncertainty over whether it will be privatised, and in that time it has lost one third of its qualified scientists and engineers. Their numbers have fallen from 625 to 400 because the staff there do not know what will happen in the future.
My right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Cabinet could also intervene in bringing the wages councils to heel and perhaps abolishing many of them. A 10 per cent. increase in wages from April has been proposed, which may be very nice for those who will receive it, but many small companies cannot afford to meet it. I know of examples in my own constituency of small firms of electricians that are going out of business because they cannot afford to pay higher wages. I hope that remedial action will be taken in that regard.
As to the Government's role as a customer, if Britain's industrial ability is to be enhanced, the quality of purchasing by the Government—as the largest single buyer in the country—must improve. That is true not only of the Ministry of Defence but of all Departments whose purchasing power dominates the market. The House frequently debates information technology, and I will not go over that ground again—but I remind right hon. and hon. Members that, of the £4 billion of data processing equipment purchased by the Government, about half is bought by the Ministry of Defence, but the other half is the subject of ad hoc purchases by different Departments, guided by no central policy on what form of data processing should be developed.
There was some acrimony in the Select Committee on Trade and Industry over why the Government do not encourage the development of wideband technology. That should be done not only because many banks, insurance

companies and mail order operations would like to invest in such a system rather than merely purchase time on one, but because the Government themselves could make substantial use of such a facility, as it would allow Departments to combat the fall in the number of people available for employment.
One questions the quality of purchasing leadership across Government Departments. It is worrying that, in terms of helping develop British industry and trade, not one of the country's top 42 civil servants has a degree in science, mathematics or engineering. In the countries that are our main competitors—America, Japan, Germany and France—such experts are part of their country's civil service establishment, and are encouraged to make a contribution to their domestic industries throughout their careers.
The improvement that Government could make through only a small increase in their investment in industry is epitomised by recent figures relating to the Science and Engineering Research Council. Each year, it considers the most highly rated—alpha-rated—research projects. Whereas, 10 years ago, 90 per cent. of the projects submitted received funding, the figure is only 60 per cent. today. Such projects represent the really glamorous seed corn from which British industry could prosper in five or 10 years' time.
I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the way in which the suggestions that I have made could be applied not only to his Department but many others. There should be more co-ordination between Government Departments, which should see themselves as sponsors of industry, buyers of industrial projects, and setters of pace in research.
Britain's eternal competitiveness is something from which no part of industry can escape. We have a propensity to offset cost-of-living increases by higher wages that are unmatched by higher sales in overseas markets. At no time is that more difficult to combat than when those overseas markets themselves are suffering the same world recession that is affecting this country. Conquering those markets will be an enormous task, but I am confident that the present Government are far more likely to help win that battle than a Labour Administration. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State challenged the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and other Opposition Members to say how they would reduce inflation, none of them could reply. The Opposition's rhetoric is as hollow as the debate that they have sought to promote today.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The recession is a reality, and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry did not deny it. Nor did he pretend that it is simply a stage in an economic cycle that the Government had wholly anticipated. Yesterday's Confederation of British Industry's survey hammered home some of the manifestations of that recession. The proportion of companies preparing to cut employment is the largest since April 1981; over the next four months, output is set to fall at the fastest rate since October 1980; capital spending is being cut; and business confidence is now at its lowest since October 1980.
The Government have been in power for more than 10 years, so how could such a significant recession arise? Ten years ago, Ministers stressed that it would take a little time


to solve the fundamental economic problems that confronted them. Even as recently as 1982, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), said:
We made it plain, too, that reversing this decline would require a major effort—an effort that would need to be sustained over the lifetime of more than one Parliament. And so it will be.
How many Parliaments do they need—one, two or three? They have had three Parliaments in which to deal with these fundamental problems. I quote again the arguments advanced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in 1982 when he said:
The 1979 oil shock made the task of restoring our economy both more urgent and much more difficult. And it coincided with the surge in pay, and public spending, which the outgoing Government bequeathed to us."—[Official Report, 9 March 1982; Vol. 19 c. 727–28.]
The outgoing Government argument has lost its currency. It is no longer available. It cannot be used of the Secretary of State's colleagues, because he shared with them the responsibility for government by the same party and according to the same policies.
So the hopes of those years have not been fulfilled. Let us look back to 1983 and the Conservative manifesto for the election year which stated:
During the years of recession, now coming to an end, even the most successful of our competitors have faced increasingly serious problems and mounting unemployment. Despite all these difficulties, the Conservative Government has been overcoming Britain's fundamental problems … The foundations of recovery have been firmly laid. In the next Parliament, we shall build on this progress.
That was two Parliaments ago, and we still have a recession.
Some things have been done and the Secretary of State sought to outline them in his speech. He referred to deregulation, privatisation, and competition—where I would take issue with him, if it were the subject of debate, because I do not think that the Government have done much to promote competition, certainly not in the electricity privatisation for example. He might wish to add to his list promotion of the concept of private enterprise and challenging monopolistic power of the trade unions. Let us put them all on the list as things which the Government have sought to do to tackle these fundamental problems.
Yet we still have a serious recession. Why is that so? First, it is because of incompetent economic management by the Government—the creation of boom conditions by the simultaneous imposition of tax cuts, credit liberalisation and the delayed ending of multiple mortgage tax relief. It was simply incompetent to do all those things at once, and not to recognise what the consequences would be.
The Secretary of State said earlier that further tax cuts would be carried out when it was prudent to do so. I wonder whether he thinks that it was prudent to carry out tax cuts in previous circumstances. They led to the boom which has led to the recession that we now face. They led to the boom which brought about the inflation to which present policies are geared.
The second reason was short-sightedness—for example, short-sightedness over Europe, when there was a long delay over Britain's entry to the exchange rate mechanism. Another example is the failure to invest in channel tunnel rail links. The French Government take a much more long-sighted view than the British Government, and do

not attempt, on ideological grounds, to insist that every penny of investment in the rail link must carry a return to the railway, and that there must be a straight commercial investment. The French knew that they could not take full advantage of the tunnel in that way, and they have invested seriously.
Another reason is the Government's tendency to look towards the next election, rather than to the longer term, or even to look merely to the next party conference. That was what determined the timing of the drop in interest rates which led to our entry into the exchange rate mechanism, and it is a very short-sighted view of how the economy should be managed.
The reasons for the recession were partly incompetence, partly short-sightedness and partly the failure to drive inflation out of the system. On the Government's own admission, underlying inflation is still likely to be around 6 per cent. by the third and fourth quarter of this year. The Government have clearly failed to drive inflation out of the system.
Why is the fact that inflation is still part of our system so bad, especially in this context? It is because inflation changes the relationship between people in society, in arbitrary and unfair ways. It reduces borrowers' liabilities, and reduces savers' capital. At the same time, it makes it more profitable to trade in pieces of paper than to trade in manufactured goods—in an era of price instability, riding on the back of inflationary increases by paper transactions is more profitable than making something and selling it. Inflation makes property a happier investment haven than industry. For all those reasons inflation is a direct source of the problems that we face today, as well as a cause of the high interest rates which are adding to those problems.
There is still no real sign that the Government will be able to keep inflation out of the system if we get out of the recession. One aspect of the Government's arguments today that worries me is that they seem to suggest that it is necessary for the recession to continue this year to help drive inflation out of the system, but that it will all be over in due course—in time, they hope, for a general election. When it is all over, they say, inflation will have been driven out of the system. I see no sign that that is the case. At the moment, our only aid for driving inflation out of the system is membership of the ERM, and that has a price. Lack of confidence in Britain's ability to drive inflation out of the system is what makes sterling vulnerable and it leads to the necessity to keep high interest rates to maintain sterling's parity within that system.
What must be done if the recession is to be cured without damaging anti-inflation policy? Action clearly needs to be taken to help Britain our of the recession. Investment in transport, training—not merely training for the unemployed—and education is necessary. The real giveaway about the Government's training policy is that, when challenged about it, they always relate it to unemployment. In the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, when we challenged the Government about last year's budget cuts in training, the cuts were justified on the basis that unemployment had gone down arid, therefore, there were fewer people to train.
When the Secretary of State was challenged today about the position of school leavers he insisted that training opportunities were available for every unemployed school leaver. That is not what training is about. Training is about providing those in jobs, as well as those not in jobs, with the skills required to make industry more


competitive. It is a crucial area for investment, and so are science and research and regional investment, which becomes more necessary because we are locked into an exchange rate system in which distortions cannot be corrected in any other way. Therefore, it becomes that much more necessary to ensure that investment, through public expenditure, is directed towards regions which have been left behind, and would seem more likely to be left behind by developments in Europe—regions not physically close to the economic centres of Europe.
None of that investment must be stopped on account of the Gulf war. Those of us who are most supportive of the prosecution of that war, and of the way in which the Prime Minister has conducted the nation's affairs in this matter, are nevertheless strongly insistent that it must not be used as an excuse for not carrying out essential investment in those areas.
The Budget must take special account of industry's needs. Obviously it is vital to bring down interest rates if we are to get out of this recession—that is the most widely stressed demand from industry. If one goes to any gathering of industrialists one will realise that the continued high level of interest rates is their greatest anxiety. However, it will not be easy to get interest rates down while our anti-inflation credibility is so low. That is why we believe that the freedom to achieve a substantial cut in interest rates also depends upon filling the anti-inflationary gap, and it leads us to believe that Labour's prescriptions will have the same disastrous side effects that they produced before, if they are not accompanied by firm anti-inflationary policy. Industry needs investment and lower interest rates, but it certainly does not need inflation. Serious inflation is a serious threat to manufacturing industry.
The Chancellor will make his Budget assessment in an especially uncertain atmosphere, and it is difficult to predict the economic consequences of the Gulf war. They are likely to be more far reaching then is implied by arguments about who contributes how much to our costs of participating in that war. It is important that we ensure that Britain gets support from our partners in the Community for the military effort that we are putting in, and that we get support from the United States when the reimbursement is shared between all those countries, including ourselves, that are providing a military commitment. There is, I believe, considerable admiration in the United States for the extent of Britain's commitment.
None of that, however, will prove as important as the response of the world economy to the war. What will happen to oil prices and to German interest rates, for instance? The atmosphere is one of uncertainty; but it is absolutely certain that, if the Chancellor ducks the obligation to stimulate the key investment that is needed to make our industry more competitive, he will do both industry and the future of this country a terrible disservice.

Mr. Michael Grylls: I strongly support what was said by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), whose remarks about the damaging effects of inflation must have struck a chord throughout the House.
I suppose that enabling the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) to have a bit of party political fun with the downturn in the economy is an inevitable part of the democratic process in the House of Commons. He seems, however, to have ignored—perhaps for party political reasons—the fact that what we are experiencing is an economic cycle, which is moving downwards not only in this country but in others; I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State cited France. There is, in fact, every chance that we shall emerge from that cycle rather earlier than some of our European competitors.
The truth is—it is in this context that the hollowness of the Opposition's case is most glaringly obvious to any independent eye—that we have had an extremely successful 10 or 11 years of steady growth, expansion, high profits in industry, good export trade and, as has been said, a good deal of inward investment by foreign companies. As I pointed out earlier in an intervention about British Steel, our larger firms in particular are now dominating Europe: British Steel is only one of the clearest examples of the appalling effects on the interventionist policies suffered by firms under the Labour Governments of the 1960s and 1970s. I am amazed that Opposition Members should have the effrontery even to organise a debate on industry, given their party's dreadful record.
Although he belongs to the generation that succeeded those who made all the mistakes during those years, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East appears to have learnt nothing from his elders—I will not say "elders and betters". He came out with all the old shibboleths: a bit more training here, a bit more intervention there, a quasi-National Enterprise Board—we all lived through the days of the NEB—and more regional policies. He sees all that as the panacea that British industry needs.
The outside world, however, knows very well that Britain's success over the past 10 years has been largely a result of the supply side changes that we have introduced. We have managed to reduce steeply the taxes paid by industry, as well as personal taxes. We have also allowed the great industries such as steel and shipbuilding to shed manpower—painful though that was—to enable themselves to compete with the rest of the world. Those industries are now firmly established: I believe that they will survive the present temporary downturn, and will continue to succeed in the outside world. Even at this difficualt time, our industry is in an incomparably stronger position than it was 10 years ago.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed was entirely right to remind us of the damage that is done by inflation. We are suffering now from the effects of high interest rates in an attempt to slay, yet again, that dragon of inflation. It is easy enough to criticise the Government for allowing interest rates to become too low three years ago, but the Opposition's hands are by no means so clean in that regard. Leaving aside party political rhetoric, however, we must deal with inflation. To their credit and honour, the Government are prepared to suffer the pain now to knock inflation on the head. Inflation that lasts for ever is far more damaging than high interest rates which, hopefully, will last for only a short time.
The Government—particularly the Chancellor, who, unlike my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, is responsible for interest rates—should peep over the abyss and decide that it is about time to bring down interest rates. I hope that my right hon. Friend will conclude that


it is safe to do that, because the monetary figures are under control, and we know that inflation will fall very rapidly during the rest of the year. We must also continue to introduce supply side changes. Let us, for heaven's sake, carry on with a policy that has been successful before. We must maintain the momentum of the tax reform programme that has achieved so much over the past 10 years. That, too, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Although Britain's large firms have done well over the past decade, and although we have created many small firms, there is a gap at present, comparatively unfilled by the medium-sized manufacturing companies that are so plentiful in some of our competitor countries. Perhaps it is dangerous for a politician to interfere, and there is probably little that we in the House can do about it, apart from continuing our supply side changes.
A persistent complaint from firms of that kind—almost more important than the complaints about interest rates, which we know will fall—is their inability to secure "term loans". This is a bad habit of the British banking system: too many independent, unquoted firms have traditionally borrowed on overdraft. That can be very dangerous. During a recession, when the banks start looking at some of their bad debts and worrying about their position, they can bear down on firms that may be quite healthy in order to help themselves.
It may be said that that is the system, and indeed it is; but it results all too frequently in damage being done to healthy independent firms with perhaps 200 or 300 employees. Germany has more term lending, and in Japan —I am leaving aside the question of interest rates—there is a long tradition of allowing independent small companies to take out loans for up to 20 years. That is completely unknown in Britain.
Industry also needs to make its voice heard in relation to the future of Europe. It is crucial that we succeed in establishing a single internal market—a free market. Let me say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has a good deal of responsibility as a spokesman for Britain, that there is a real danger of our failing to establish that market by 1 January 1993 if Europe continues to be deflected in the direction of hares that have no relevance to the task. That, of course, is monetary union, and, even worse, political union.
I say this to my right hon. Friend, who must fight the battles in Brussels and elsewhere on the Continent: please fight for the success of the internal market—the nitty-gritty, the nuts and bolts. A discussion paper published by the European Commission deals with money transfers in Europe, an important factor for those who will do business across this huge market. It suggests a mechanism linking a national automatic clearing house,
perhaps in the form of a pan-European clearing House. To illustrate this point, the Commission paper said 25 per cent. of payments in a sample of 144 transfers from France to Germany took more than 10 days to arrive; two per cent. took more than six weeks, and two had not arrived 12 months later.
That shows that there is a long way to go in establishing an effective internal market when money transfers across the continent take so long, compared with the United Kingdom, where money can be transferred electronically within seconds. It is no good companies doing business in Europe if they cannot get their money, or if it takes so long to arrive that it undermines their profits.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must ensure that he counteracts the underlying collectivist, protectionist and nationalisation ideas that still exist in the minds of some of our European partners. Such beliefs will not establish a successful European market. He must carry on the successful principles of the Government and ensure that they are spread throughout the European Community. The changes that we have made have served us very well indeed.
I foresee interest rates falling soon, but we must remain in a low interest rate regime. We must have stability—that is another great cry of industry—and, above all, in Europe we must ensure that the free market is established. If we can achieve those aims, our success in the past 10 years will be carried on even more strongly in the 10 years ahead, during which I am sure this country will continue to have a Conservative Government.

Mr. Ron Brown: First, I declare an interest. I think that I am the only member of the Amalgamated Engineering Union here. My union knows about recession; it experiences recession through its membership. That has been made clear by Gavin Laird and Mr. Jordan.
Things must be judged by reality. A recession, or a slump, must be judged by the factors that are known to us. It must be judged by unemployment, manufacturing output, bankruptcies, investment, interest rates, inflation and so on, all of which add up to a massive trade deficit. The Government, who speak of sound housekeeping, cannot balance the books. They cannot keep the sums under control to prevent the British people from suffering.
Conservative Members are looking for a fall guy. They say that it is all the fault of Thatcherism. But Thatcherism is another name for monopoly capitalism—a system that is unfair, inefficient, corrupt and dangerous. It is unfair because it concentrates wealth in fewer hands, inefficient because it cannot produce the goods, and corrupt because it justifies tax evasion and stock exchange fiddles. It is dangerous because it engages in military adventures, as we are seeing in the Gulf.
If there is a crisis here—it must be admitted that there is, otherwise we would not be having this debate—there is also a crisis worldwide, which, sadly, is hitting many developing countries that do not have a voice in this Chamber.
Britain's economic ills are blamed on the working class —on British workers. The excuse of Conservative Members is that we have changed Prime Ministers, but the medicine bottle remains the same; only the label has been replaced.
In the past, Tories said that wages were too high. The argument was, "Price yourself in or out of a job or get on your bike." The working class were told that repeatedly, but it was not said to police chiefs, generals or judges. Of course that was not said to the bigwigs, but it was said to the working class.
British workers are the coolies of Europe, and that has been known for some time. Conservative Members should not smile about that. If low wages were a panacea for Britain's economic problems, the Indian economy would be the boom economy of the world, but it is not. Conservative Members know that low wages do not solve anything. They justify skinflint employers and clapped out


machinery and plant, which is what has been going on. That is why British industry was decimated. Many factories were closed because they could not compete with the efficient industries of Germany and Japan. They could not face up to the fact that those countries had more modern equipment and tried to do things on the cheap.
Training and apprenticeships were discouraged by this Government. Instead, Mrs. Thatcher and others encouraged cheap, phoney labour schemes. What did that do? It did nothing for the British economy and little for the people who were exploited. It did nothing for those youngsters who had few rights, but who suffered appalling injuries and did not receive any compensation whatsoever. That is the legacy of the past.
Figures produced by the EEC show that 62 per cent. of Britain's industrial workers are unskilled, compared with 38 per cent. in Germany, 31 per cent. in Italy and 20 per cent. in France. That sums it up and it is a disgrace. We must always remember that our greatest asset is people and we should invest in them. Education and training have been neglected, as have so many other spheres that are important to the working class such as housing, the national health service and local government, which has tried to build up local economies. I am speaking not about luxuries but about essentials and what is important.
Debates on recession in industry are not held in Germany or in other major European countries, yet they do not have oil. We have had oil resources for so long, but, unbelievably, revenue from it has gone into the pockets of people who are represented by Conservative Members. I am not saying that that is done corruptly but that it is wrong and that that revenue is being misused.
What about Labour's position? We want an alternative to the Government's policies, but it is like sin—what do you put in its place? [Laughter.] Do not mock. The alternative will not come from the EEC. The Community has been a disaster in trading terms even on a capitalist basis. Being involved with the EEC has sunk the British economy and that is why I am against the EEC.
We must look to the future and act today. Talking about what we will achieve in future is an academic exercise. Tinkering with the economy is not enough. We need socialist policies that will take over the commanding heights of the economy under democratic control. It should be under the control of the workers. That is the only way in which we can influence what happens in Britain.
It is all very well talking about issues, but we want real control. Labour Governments have held office and a Labour Government might hold office again in the future, and we want to hold power. I speak for people outside this place. Unless we implement socialist policies we will not get anywhere. Whether Tweedledum or Tweedledee, it is unacceptable to me.
The Labour party and a future Labour Government have no mandate to run capitalism better than the Tories because the capitalist system and big business have no mandate from us outside this place. We and the working class expect something much better.
I hope that my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench understand my point of view tonight. I speak for my AEU members and I am an AEU official. I do not criticise

my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench, but the trade union movement and the AEU want socialist policies in answer to Tory policies.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) referred at some length and with great passion to the far distant future and a time when he hopes to see a fundamental change in the nature of our society. However, many of my constituents have told me that the most important thing they need—not next year, not even in the next six months, but this month—is a reduction in interest rates. It lies within the Government's power to make that reduction.
Many of the prescriptions put forward by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown)—for example, a considerable increase in public expenditure on training and regional policies, and all those well tried and, I would argue, somewhat dubious remedies—would succeed only in a year or two years' time, if they were to succeed at all.
The plight of many of our constituents is urgent and critical. They are being crucified by very high interest rates that have been in place since the middle of 1988. We who believe in a minimal Government and that the Government's principal role is to provide sound money and not to increase public expenditure, have an important duty to decide whether lower interest rates can be delivered properly.
We have been through many fashions in respect of floating and fixed exchange rates. There is a danger in all human affairs to think about the last experiment and to conclude that something better could replace it, and then to achieve something worse. I believe that the best period of economic management pursued by this Government occurred between 1979 and 1982, when the Government pursued policies of floating exchange rates and attempted to control inflation by following a medium-term financial strategy that envisaged a steady, continuous and inexorable reduction in the rate of increase in the money supply.
Of course that did not happen without pain, a great increase in unemployment and much unpopularity. However, I contend that the alternative of fixed exchange rates—I make no distinction between fixing the pound to the dollar and fixing it to the deutschmark—which have been tried so often, have always failed. They failed in 1967, when Mr. Wilson had to devalue in humiliating circumstances. Every time I hear the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister say that there will be no devaluation, I remember the speeches that Mr. Wilson used to make, and I recall the horrifying humiliation that descended on his Government after he had so unwisely fixed himself to a particular value against the dollar.
We tried fixed exchange rates again in 1972, and after six weeks we came out of the snake. We have now had two experiments, because it is wrong to say that we entered the exchange rate mechanism only recently. We were informal members of that mechanism between 1986 and 1988, when the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), apparently without any authority from the Prime Minister or the Cabinet, in effect pegged the pound to the deutschmark.
As a consequence, our interest rates were much too low for a long period. That created a massive increase in the money supply and a major increase in asset prices, and in particular in house prices. That was extremely popular, and it enabled the right hon. Member for Blaby to say that he had achieved an economic miracle. However, that is now, quite rightly, seen as a disaster.
Having had that recent experiment of being informal members of a fixed exchange rate mechanism, we are now entering such a mechanism on a formal basis. It just so happens that at this particular moment the way in which the pound is valued by foreign speculators requires us to have our interest rates too high for domestic reasons. For every domestic reason, interest rates should be coming down now. Asset prices have fallen, and share prices are low in real terms. House prices have fallen in both real and actual terms. Every part of the economy that is attached in any way to asset prices is having difficulty.
On an entirely political point, I noticed with interest that one of the things of which the Government are proud, according to their amendment, is the increase in new businesses. Before I entered the Chamber today, I asked the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South- East (Mr. Turner) what he thought of the position in Wolverhampton at the moment. He said that things were pretty difficult, but not as bad as the period between 1979 and 1982. He represents the Bilston area, and he reminded me of what happened to the Bilston steel works. He said to me, "The awful thing is that many of the people who took their redundancy money became self-employed. They were exactly the people who voted for Maureen Hicks. They voted Conservative for the first time while they were setting up their new businesses"—

Mr. McCartney: They will not do that again.

Mr. Budgen: No, they may not, because they have been squeezed hideously by the high interest rates. Some of those people may have borrowed £10,000 to buy a couple of vans or a lorry and become self-employed.
It is perfectly true that we cannot squeeze inflation out of the system without pain. However, let us consider the other argument. It might be possible, to retain the pound in its present setting, to have base rates at 25 per cent. That would certainly push inflation out of the system, but it is not good enough just to say, "We are doing this to push inflation out of the system." We must decide whether we are doing that in a steady, predictable way to minimise the social and economic consequences of doing so.
Of course, by hitching ourselves to the deutschmark, we are hitching ourselves to something that is unpredictable. The value of the pound against the deutschmark is not decided, as the Prime Minister suggests, simply by the differential rates of inflation: it is decided by speculators' views of the two currencies. One speculator may say that the differential rate of inflation is the most important aspect. Another person may take a view about the relative stability of the political situation. Another person may decide, for the sake of argument, that the balance of trade deficit is all-important. All those matters form part of a speculator's judgment, but a market judgment is inherently unpredictable, and that is so much less satisfactory than the medium-term financial strategy.
I am not saying that the medium-term financial strategy was absolutely perfect. There may have been unfortunate enthusiasts such as myself who had a mechanistic view of

such matters and thought that it was impossible to impose it without sufficient judgment, but that system is infinitely preferable to the vagaries of hitching the pound to another exchange rate.
Unless we move away from the exchange rate mechanism as quickly as possible, we will have the humiliation of seeing our leading politicians—that applies to whatever Government there may be at the time—doing what Mr. Wilson did. They will say that there will be no devaluation, and the Governor of the Bank of England will appear on the telly, saying, "There is no devaluation," while foreign exchanges see massive sums of money being lost in intervention, and then we shall have devaluation. I do not mind whether it is called a realignment or a readjustment or any word that it is possible to fudge 1.0 retain the dignity of our leaders. What we do not want is the continuation of the unpredictability of having our currency fixed to the deutschmark.
There is, of course, another reason for having a fixed European exchange rate. It was thought by some that there were political advantages in the European exchange rate mechanism. I do not want to overrate the matter, but I should have thought that even those who are sceptical about such issues must have noticed that there has been some slight lack of uniformity in the European nation states' response to the conflict in the Gulf. I do not wish in any way to cause trouble about that.
However, if, for the sake of argument, after the last war we had imposed upon Germany a constitution that prevented them from taking part in conflicts such as that in the Gulf, and if we had split their country and then they quite understandably decided that their main energy and financial resources should be devoted towards the cost of making their reunification successful, can we be surprised that they have a rather different view of the conflict in the Gulf?
Can we be frightfully surprised that the French, with their traditional links with Iraq and their traditional habit of selling arms on what might be described as a rather more pragmatic basis than some other countries are prepared to pursue, have a different attitude towards the Gulf? Is it not obvious that the political advantages that were said to accrue from going into a European fixed exchange rate mechanism are not likely to come about?
The sooner the Government go back to the successful policies of, first, having a floating exchange rate and, secondly, having a predictable programme for slowly reducing the increase in the money supply, the better; otherwise, we shall certainly lose the election by being hitched to an unpredictable star such as the deutschmark. We shall humiliate ourselves, as so many other statesmen have humiliated themselves in the past, by fixing the currency to another currency.

Mr. Ian McCartney: Hon. Members have listened to a devastating critique in opposition to the Government's amendment. It is not the first time that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) has set out his economic opinion in intellectual terms. Although I could not support his attitude to the free market, his critique was at least honest compared with the Secretary of State's political chicanery.
I think that the hon. Gentleman is known as "Budgie" to his friends. It is interesting that he literally blew the


whistle on the Government's pretence that there is no recession in the United Kingdom, that there is simply a downturn and that sacrifices are not being made by ordinary men and women, many of whom, as the hon. Gentleman said, took up the Government's promises in the past decade. In many cases they invested their own resources, not just redundancy money, and took up the opportunity of self-employment. They now find themselves riddled with debt and are desperate.
Some Conservative Back-Bench Members have sneered. They do not sneer at Opposition Members, they sneer at people who are suffering at the sharp end and who are making real sacrifices. In answer to an intervention by me, the Secretary of State himself sneered at the contributions that are being made by local authorities in an attempt to develop alternative economic policies to take account not only of what happened in the 1980s but of what needs to happen to develop alternative employment prospects and create wealth.
Despite my accent, I represent an English constituency in a former mining community in south Lancashire. Devastation was brought to the community in the 1970s, and in the 1980s in particular. The loss of tens of thousands of textile and engineering jobs has made local authorities think deeply about interventionist policies in the local economy, and about working with the private sector, public bodies and the European Community to try to develop a regeneration strategy. The Minister rejects that concept, despite the Audit Commission's report on urban regeneration and economic development clearly stating that there is a role for local government in the regeneration of the economy at local and regional level. However, the Government continue, as a matter of policy, to underrate the contribution made by local authorities.
In my area there has been a strategy, which will continue into the 1990s, of putting forward proposals, working with the private sector, and developing new job opportunities. Every time we have launched a scheme and created new jobs there have also been massive job losses. In the past few weeks there have been 800 redundancies in the Wigan travel-to-work area. That does not include the Wigan people who work in the St. Helens travel-to-work area, the Preston travel-to-work area, or the Warrington travel-to-work area.
In my area, one of the most promising new textile companies in the 1980s was developed with assistance from the local authority, and it created new jobs, training schemes and new factory arrangements. That company has announced 104 redundancies. That is not because of bad management or a lack of interest in creating new markets, it is because the Government's interest rate policy is virtually crippling the company. The Government's failure to deal with import penetration has crippled the country. That company was successful, trained its work force, had good industrial relations, and had a good working relationship with and assistance from the local authority. Yet it has had to make over 100 people redundant because of Government policies.
Gullick Dobson—a company in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott)—is one of the largest firms in the world involved in the manufacture of mining equipment. As a direct consequence of the privatisation of the electricity industry, hundreds of jobs in

the mining equipment industry have been lost, and it was announced recently that there would be a further 100 redundancies by April this year. As a direct consequence of the Government's policy towards British Coal and the privatisation of the electricity industry, millions of pounds' worth of investment in mining equipment has been lost, and the market has almost totally collapsed.
That is not a case of bad management, or of the failure of the management of Gullick Dobson and its work force; it is a direct consequence of Government policies. Unless those policies are reversed, Britain will cease to have any mining technology industry, despite the fact that we have coal reserves that would last nearly 1,000 years and the fact that we have had a century of research and development connected with mining equipment.
I could go on and devleop the same theme in respect of all aspects of the local economy. Small, medium and large companies are suffering the same problems—in every case, the direct result of Government policies, rather than of a failure of management or of the work force.
Rockware plc, which is one of Britain's largest plastic and glassware companies and one that has received awards for its contribution to British industry, found itself last year with a real problem. As a result of high interest rates it could not find the resources for the machinery that, after 1992, will be necessary to develop new plastic containers and other products. Its European competitors entered the field and virtually purchased the entire market capacity. How were they able to do that? They were able to do it because the banks in their countries encourage long-term investment at low interest rates.
In addition, those Governments are prepared to use regional development funds for that purpose. I refer, for example, to the Governments of Holland and Germany. As a consequence, this company is reducing its work force by more than 100, and what has been United Kingdom capacity is being transformed into a foreign investment portfolio. I say again that this is a direct consequence of the Government's failure to create a market in which companies can take risks and take advantage of new investment opportunities.
During the 1980s Labour local authorities in the north-west had a record of success. Indeed, much of the remaining manufacturing base exists as a direct result of local authority intervention. In the early and mid-1980s the present Government almost destroyed the engineering base of the north-west. Indeed, in that regard, the area has suffered more than any other region of Britain. Over the decade, there has been a 30 per cent. reduction in manufacturing employment—30 per cent. in the case of a region that accounts for the second largest contribution, in monetary and material terms, to the British economy. The region has been virtually destroyed as a result of the Government's policies.
We shall not win in the Division Lobbies tonight. The Government's position is clear. The tragedy is that it is British industry that will lose tonight. The losers will be the work force, the managements, people who want to invest and local authorities that want to develop a new economic outlook and a new future. Every time the Secretary of State comes to the Dispatch Box, our competitors in Europe and elsewhere rub their hands with glee. Every time the Government refuse to intervene, to develop a common approach to investment and training, in partnership with local authorities and with the private


sector, they give our competitors a signal that the British market, in terms of capacity and production, is available to them.
We are involved in a war in the Gulf, but there is also an economic war at home. This was set out very well by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. Unless something very dramatic happens in the next few years, unless there is a change of Government and a change of policies, we shall lose the economic war, and we shall lose the opportunities for thousands of young people. That is what Ministers sneer at. A generation of young people are being denied real job opportunities in a real economy.
The Secretary of State sneered at my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) when he presented his alternative policies. Where would he get the money? The Government are prepared to invest £1 million a day in the Gulf war—and the possibility is that that will go up to £1 billion a week. If there is a will, resources can be found. If resources are to be found to protect industry, jobs and opportunities, we need a Government with the will to provide those resources. If the present Government are not prepared to do so, let us have a general election so that a Labour Government may save British industry.

Mr. James Cran: As a number of other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall curtail my remarks.
These debates always disappoint me. Essentially, what happens is that British industry is criticised on the one hand, and individual companies and their work forces on the other. It seems to me that that is not the way to provide British companies with the incentive they need. The manner of the moving of the motion by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) was disgraceful. He used the gatling-gun approach—an enormous number of ideas presented in rapid-fire fashion. Indeed, they were not ideas; they were simply words that did not connect with one another and, in the end, did not amount to strategy. "Strategy" is a magical word which has been used by all Opposition spokesmen. So far as Opposition Members are concerned, everything is reduceable to strategy—a training strategy or an economic strategy or, as in the days when I represented industrialists in the west midlands, an industrial strategy.
Whatever industrialists in this country want, it is not a Labour Government or a whole load of strategies, one heaped upon another. That is a simple fact and if the Opposition do not understand it they ought to start speaking to a few industrialists. It is perfectly clear that they have not done so recently. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was absolutely correct to take inflation as the kernel of his argument. I speak to many industrialists and every one of them wants price stability. There is no question about that. That is why industrialists will never place their trust in the Labour party.
I looked up some facts and the situation is quite clear. The Labour party's record prior to 1979, in so far as it was a record, showed an average inflation rate of 15·5 per cent. Under the present Government the rate, at 7·9 per cent., has been just about half that. I am not satisfied with the present rate of inflation—nor are the Government—but the industrial community knows perfectly well that the Government can reduce it, whereas the Opposition could not do so in a month of Sundays. That is a simple fact.
Some hon. Members have drawn comparisons between the present downturn—I do not use the word "recession"; it is a downturn—and the situation in the period 1979–81. That is ludicrous. Comparing the period 1979–81 to the present is like comparing chalk with cheese. I well remember taking a train journey at that time between New Street station in Birmingham and Wolverhampton. What I passed through was a lunar landscape. That was the result of a number of years of policies pursued by the previous Labour Government—although, to be fair, not just that Government. On each side of that railway line there were no companies; there were just a lot of empty sheds. I repeat: it was a lunar landscape.
That has been transformed. If anyone cares to take that rail journey again he will find that the whole area between Birmingham and the black country has been rejuvenated. It was not rejuvenated in the absence of policy. It was rejuvenated in the back of the sensible fiscal, monetary and industrial policies followed by the Government during the past 10 years.
I am astonished that we have not heard as much about the Confederation of British Industry during the debate as I expected. I came armed with a quote from the chief economic adviser to the CBI in The Times of 2 January 1991. He knows perfectly well what the facts are, because he said:
There are substantial strengths in the British economy which should reassert themselves as inflation abates.
It is quite clear to me that inflation is abating. The strengths to which the CBI referred will undoubtedly assert themselves.
It is extraordinary that in a debate such as this we have heard a litany of doomsday stuff from the Opposition. They did not mention that in the United Kingdom living standards, which are a reflection of what industry is doing and achieving, have moved up in the past 10 years from eighth position in the league table of EC countries to fifth position. To hear Opposition Members speak, one would think that the opposite was true.
Of course, I am not satisfied that we have merely maintained our share of world trade in manufactures since 1983. I should have liked to see it increase. But the Opposition's record shows that they allowed that share to decrease. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State alluded to that. So progress has indeed been made.
I am also disappointed that no Opposition Member mentioned that in the United Kingdom we have some of the strongest and best companies on the globe. If I were a manager or a worker in any of those companies I should have taken great offence at the rubbish I heard from the Opposition. [Interruption.] Opposition Members should listen sometimes, because they might learn something. If they looked at the record, they would find that, of the top 500 European companies, 138 are British. To listen to that lot on the Opposition Benches, one would think that there were no British companies on the list at all. How many such companies does Germany have on the list? It has a mere 92. Some of us might have presumed from the stuff we heard from the Opposition that the figures were the other way round, but they are not.
Let us consider turnover. British companies account for 69 per cent. of the turnover of Europe's 50 top industrial companies. Why was that not mentioned? It is because the fact does not suit the Opposition's political case, which is


all that we heard from Opposition Members today. Their case was not based on sense or fact because not one of them could mobilise a bit of sense or fact between them.
Another fact that was entirely missing from the scenario given by the Opposition was that the standard of competence of management is so much higher following the past 10 years of Government policy. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may harass, but that does not change the fact. Management is now far more competent than ever before. That was reflected in the Lonrho statement to shareholders which appeared again in The Times—one of my favourite newspapers—of 25 January 1991. [Interruption.] If Opposition Members would listen they would find that there was something different about management. The chairman said in that statement:
Some economies are in recession, but change always means opportunity and Lonrho welcomes it with sharpened teeth.
That is a characteristic of most of the companies to which I have referred today and it is certainly a characteristic of most of the companies that I visit in my constituency.
I finish by merely drawing attention to a factor which has already been mentioned—inward investment. It is clear that the United Kingdom has been the number one location for inward investment in Europe. That clearly could not have been the case if the scenario put to us by the Opposition was as bad as they suggested. Foreign companies want some economic stability and they know that that is exactly what they will have from this Government. There will be no U-turns or sail trimming and that policy will continue.
I shall finish with those words to allow some of my hon. Friends an opportunity to speak. I deprecate the manner in which the Opposition introduced the motion. It was an insult to British companies, but, worse, it was an insult for the British labour force which works for those companies.

Mr. Edward O'Hara: I wish to turn the debate from intellectual abstractions such as we have just heard from the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) to what recession feels like in the regions. I speak as one who comes from the north-west—which, according to many indicators, has suffered more than any region in the past decade—from Merseyside—which is the most deprived part of the north-west—and from Knowsley, South—which is undoubtedly the most deprived part of Merseyside. I speak as one who does not believe in minimalist government but who believes in strategies. When I talk to industrialists in my part of the country, they tell me that they would prefer some economic strategy to the laissez-faire mess which they are suffering under this Government.
I, too, remember the miracle years of 1979 to 1981. I remember rusting barbed wire on perimeter fences of empty factories in the trading estates of Knowsley, South. Manufacturing investment figures are quoted as part of the vaunted economic miracle of the Government. The Government always carefully choose the year from which they date their improvements. It took until 1988 to return to the 1979 levels of investment, and the figures mask the cumulative shortfall of over £20·5 billion of industrial investment between 1983 and 1987.
The worst hit area was the north-west, which had a cumulative shortfall of £3·75 billion of industrial investment in that time. The Government could have helped with regional preferential assistance to the north-west, but they did not. Regional preferential assistance to the north-west between 1978–79 and 1989–90 fell by as much as 72·2 per cent. As recently as 1988–89, there was a reduction of £181 million.
The result was a drop in gross domestic product per head in the north-west between 1979 and 1989 of 5 per cent. in the worst hit of all regions. The result for my people was unemployment at a rate which demoralises and distorts communities. Unemployment is rising in every region. It has risen by 13,300 in the north-west since October. In the north-west, 35·5 per cent. of those registered unemployed have been out of work for over 12 months. Not only small businesses but major companies are shedding jobs.
When a company such as Ford sheds thousands of jobs, those jobs are spread over a large go-to-work area. BICC, which is presumably one of the strongest companies in the world, is from the area and was originally called Prescot Cables. When it closes a factory, it tears the heart out of the community because we do not have such a strong tradition of commuting to work in my part of the world. There are fewer cars per family there. The latest factory closure announced by BICC in Prescot means that approximately half the capacity in this country for the production of highly valuable conductive copper will be lost because of the laissez-faire policies of the Government. They could have done something about it, but they did not care.
Unemployment distorts local economies and local populations. At Euston station at tea time on any Friday, one can see the migrant labourers of Merseyside returning home on what we call the Tebbit express. Many will not come back. There is an irony. Proud Merseyside, based on immigrant labourers from Ireland, Wales and elsewhere in the 19th century—my ancestors came from Ireland—is now exporting its migrant labourers to wherever they can find menial work.
The Government boast that living standards have increased overall, but in the north-west they are only half the national average. In Knowsley, South, I could show the Minister many families whose living standards have declined the past 10 years because of the distortions in the population consequent upon the Government's economic policies. We have a high incidence of families dependent on benefits. We all know the position. The freezing of child benefit in particular has had a disproportionate effect on families in Knowsley. For those in employment, the average cost of a mortgage has risen by £93·21 over the past two years. In Knowsley, South that has a significant impact on living standards.
The people in Knowsley, South spend a higher than average proportion of their weekly income on the necessities of life. If the cost of the necessities goes up, it has an impact on living standards. Mortgage interest is one example; the poll tax is another. The community has a large number of large families with many poll tax payers per household. The poll tax bills have gone up considerably compared with rate bills. The average increase is 38 per cent.
All that feeds back into failures of shops and small businesses in an already fragile economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) referred to


the economic needs of the community. When local authorities try to service the social and economic needs, because we believe in a local government policy of industrial development locally, they are punished by the Government with the threat of capping.
I hope that I have shown that, in the regions such as Knowsley, South, which I represent, the people are crying out for a change of Government as soon as possible and for the advent of a Government with a commitment to introduce policies for regional industrial development, jobs and increased living standards.

Mr. Alistair Burt: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution to the debate. I shall try to cover the history of the last 10 years in three minutes.
The problem with a debate such as this is that it must concentrate on the immediate, but if we consider just that and not the trends of the last 10 years, we do not see the whole picture. It is important to see how we have come through the last decade, so that we may understand how we have got to this stage and how we can go on.
It is wrong for Opposition Members not to pay any regard to the changes for the good which have happened to the structure of British manufacturing over the past 10 years. Yes, there are fewer people employed, but that is a worldwide trend. We all know that that was bound to happen. Productivity has improved in many ways and investment has gone up. In my constituency, the base of manufacturing has changed since 1979. We have a greater diversity of industry since service industries have grown. That change is neither good nor bad; it is simply fact.
However, the bad times have come back. I do not believe the easy words which say that the recession is affecting only some parts of the country and not the regions. It is affecting the regions. Ministers should note what the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) said. He spoke about people in manufacturing listening to the Labour party. Yes, they are. If we are to stop them listening to the Labour party, we have to move quickly.
As many of my hon. Friends have said, inflation remains the major enemy for everyone, including manufacturers. They appreciate that our policies are basically correct, but interest rates are hurting. What is also hurting is that the Government do not seem to have the same feel for manufacturing industry as they have for the City. We have time to correct that attitude. We have a Budget coming which we can make a Budget for industry.
At heart, no manufacturer seriously wants a Labour Government. Manufacturers do not want devaluation or inconsistencies in policies; they do not want the disasters of the past. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) is muttering to himself, but he cannot explain why manufacturing productivity fell by 2·5 per cent. during the time the Labour Government were in power, or how investment plummeted by 20 per cent. in three years. Manufacturers do not want those conditions back. They want a Conservative Government, but a Conservative Government who plainly believe in manufacturing industry.
Let us get the rhetoric right in the Budget. Let us find some measures within our economic strategy which do not

affect the fight against inflation but which recognise the pain that manufacturers are going through and keep their faith with a Government who at heart are really for them.

Mr. Doug Henderson: The debate is about the Government's economic failure, which has brought the country into a deepening recession. It has been an interesting debate, although it has been short. There have been some telling contributions. We have heard the experiences of hon. Members from different parts of the country and from different sectors of industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) made a convincing case for the north-west and the need to do something to help the business community which felt particularly let down by the impact of Government policies. We heard a passionate speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who spoke about the damage being done in the Wigan travel-to-work area and the damage to the textile industry in his area. He also talked about the important role of local authorities, in partnership with industry, to help economic development. Surely that makes sense. It is not a party political point. Surely it should be accepted by local authorities of all colours if they have some wisdom.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (M r. Brown) made a strong contribution in support of his constituency. I cannot say that I agree with every word, but I agree with his point about medicine from the new leader of the Conservative party being essentially the same as we have had from the party for the last 10 years.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), a neighbour of mine in the north-east, made a plea for investment in infrastructure and railways in connection with the channel tunnel. He and I are at one in support of that important project.
My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (M r. O'Hara) reminded the House that, in his constituency, we again have the rusty barbed wire which we saw to our cost in 1979–81. Again damage is being done to local communities.
In a forthright contribution, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) made a courageous comment. He said that there was a hideous squeeze on small business in that city because of Government policy and current interest rates. He also predicted that the Government would lose the general election if they stayed in a currency system which was linked to the deutschmark. That historic prediction may well be proven correct, even if for other reasons.
The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren), also in a useful speech, drew the attention of the House to the importance of the creation of wealth in society. I can tell him that the Labour party fully supports and endorses that.
The hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran), in a speech of which he cannot be proud, especially given his CBI background, accused virtually every Opposition Member of complete ignorance of our industrial community. It was a lot of nonsense, and I am not prepared to comment further. Labour Members take great pride in supporting their local industry and those who work in it.
The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) emphasised the need to take a long-term view of the economy. We agree on most things connected with football, and I agree with him also on that point. However, when he said that manufacturers in the north-west did not want a Labour Government, it was clear that he could not have been talking to manufacturers even in his constituency. When I visited it recently, they emphasised the importance of having a Government who looked after industry, training, the infrastructure and the rest of it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) emphasised that the recession which the country faces is self-inflicted by a Government who, following the tax cuts of 1986–87, created rapid inflation, high interest rates and a massive deficit in the balance of payments. The recession is self-inflicted by a Government who are so obsessed with cutting public expenditure that they sit back in complacent idleness while our transport system chokes itself to a halt. The recession is self-inflicted by a Government who are so obsessed with having no regulations on training and employment that we now have virtually no training policy. The recession is self-inflicted by a Government who are so obsessed with the party line that they have killed off the production line.
The Secretary of State pointed out that the Government believed that tackling inflation was the main aim of economic policy and that inflation was a disease in this country. All the millions of mortgage payers who for the past 24 months, have had to pay rapidly increasing contributions will also agree that inflation is a disease which has been created by the Government. Mortgage holders who have had to forfeit their homes because they cannot keep up with the payments because of the interest rates will feel even more acutely that that is the case.
If tackling inflation is the Government's main aim—I do not dispute that—they cannot duck the evidence before them. Inflation is now more than double the European Community average. It was more than 10 per cent. in 1990. It has made our industry the most uncompetitive industry in Europe. What makes matters worse, the Secretary of State has said that inflation penalises the sick, the poor and the weak in society. If that is so—I am sure it is—it is an admission by the Government that the failure of their economic policies has penalised the sick, the poor and the weak sections of our community.
Time and again during the 1980s, the Government told us that inflation would be the judge and jury of their policies. If so, the verdict is that their economic policy has been a complete failure. The result is that we now not only have high inflation, but have returned to a vicious recession worse than anything since the second world war, bar the 1979–81 recession.
Time and again the Government have claimed that there has been a transformation. Indeed, the Under-Secretary of State made that point last week during Trade and Industry questions. I had little sympathy for him when he made that point as a Back Bencher, ambitious to get on to the Conservative Front Bench, and had a choice. Nevertheless, he learned the lines about the great transformation. I now have some sympathy for him. Although he still comes out with the same well worn, well rehearsed lines, the difference is that he has no choice.
When the Under-Secretary of State comes to the Dispatch Box, he will undoubtedly again tell us of the difficulties that the Government have faced, yet there has been a great transformation. What he will not tell us, and what the Secretary of State did not tell us either, is that about 2 million people will be out of work by the spring. They do not tell us about the 1,500 people who are losing their jobs in manufacturing every week, about the thousands of businesses that have gone to the wall because of high interest rates, about the manufacturing deficit in 1990 of £13 billion and the trade deficit of £16 billion—the fastest fall in output for 10 years—or about the reduction in manufacturing investment which is 8 per cent. down in the third quarter of 1990 compared with the same quarter in 1989. They have not told us those facts. It is clear to the whole country that there has been no transformation in our economy and that we are in another deep recession.
I understand Tory Members who think that the CBI is a bunch of whingeing faint hearts, disloyal to the point of objectivity. Nevertheless, the CBI has a view. It knows about industry. Its members are industrialists. They know what is happening at the point of production every day. The CBI's latest "Industrial Trends" clearly shows that business confidence has fallen more sharply than at any time since October 1980, that total demand has continued to fall sharply and that the largest proportion of firms since April 1981 are preparing to cut employment.
In case the Minister or the Secretary of State think that I am being selective in my evidence, I draw their attention to that other band of treacherous lefties, the chambers of commerce. The chamber of commerce survey published in the past few days found that most regions are experiencing severe recession and that it is deepening further. The difference from past recessions—in 1974–75 and again in 1979–81—is that the Government blamed a world recession for their troubles. There is no world recession in 1991. Countries such as Germany and Japan are still enjoying growth and low levels of inflation. In past recessions, the north of the country, south Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland were the hardest hit by the fall in economic activity nationally.
This is a new-fashioned recession. It is not worldwide. It has not hit the north and old industries only. Of course, it has hit the north too. Our northern regions have been badly hit and damaged, particularly the textile and engineering industries and the truck sector of the motor vehicle industry. This recession has hit the whole of our community. The south has been equally badly affected. Unemployment in the south-east is more than 450,000. It rose by 117,000 between October and December. In London and the south-east, 50 per cent. of company liquidations occurred in 1990, and there was a 35 per cent. increase in business failures since 1989. New industries have been hit, such as the electronics companies in Cambridge and British Aerospace in Kingston.
The country knows that the evidence of unemployment, our trade deficit, mortgage rates, interest rates and inflation has exposed the economics of the Conservative Cabinet as ruinous, dated and out of touch. Our industrial and commercial community know that the country is in an economic mess. If truth be told, if the Government face up to the facts and are honest about the predicament of the economy, they know that there has been no transformation and that the economy is in a mess.
The Government have dug deep into the trenches of a recession that is entirely of their own making. The people


want to know how the country can be dug out. There is enormous consensus among industrialists, chambers of commerce, workers and others that we should begin to invest and plan for the needs of future generations. They believe that we should invest in roads, railways, and telecommunications. They believe that we should plan our trading needs and invest in research and development in common with other comparative economies, so that we can upgrade our technology.
Those people believe that we should make a real effort so that economic activity is fairly distributed and the country is not hamstrung by a stop-go cycle that usually starts in the south and kills off the north. This time that cycle has started in the south and has damaged the north, but it could well kill the south before it ends.
The people are asking when we shall have a Government who will help industry instead of helping themselves to industry. I believe that people will choose to support the policies and the politics contained in our motion. When it comes to the next general election, the people will back the political party that supports those policies, which can form a decent Government to serve the country in the future.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Edward Leigh): During the entire speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) I was waiting to hear about Labour party policies—and we had to wait until the final two minutes. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has checked his list of priorities with the shadow Chief Secretary? I doubt it, because we have been informed that the Labour party is not in the business of peddling spending policies. The hon. Gentleman's speech gave the opposite impression.
We have had an interesting debate—a "crisis" debate, I believe the hon. Member for Edinburgh Leith (Mr. Brown) called it as he addressed all of two Labour Back Benchers. It has been a debate in which my hon. Friends have been prepared to be positive. I want to pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran), who speaks from experience. I do not think it was entirely unremarkable for my hon. Friend to try to persuade the Opposition not to talk down British industry and the successful parts of our economy.

Mr. David Blunkett: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way in the limited time available. Perhaps he and his hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) would care to come to Sheffield to talk to the managing director of Barworth Flockton, which employs hundreds of men in engineering. That company survived the previous recession, but without a change in Government policy on exchange rates and interest rates, it simply will not be able to stay in business. The Government should also protect us from their free trade policies which have allowed import levies into the United States to start to kill Shardlows, which is part of United Engineering Steels, in the forging industry. Those are the facts. Beverley and Gainsborough may be protected from them, but the great skilled city of Sheffield is not.

Mr. Leigh: Gainsborough is not very far from the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and he should know that it is

an industrial town. If the hon. Gentleman had studied the recent 3Is—Investors in Industry—survey of business men, he would discover that 80 per cent. believe that business is in a better position now to weather the current downturn in demand than it was nine years ago. I would rather take evidence from a well conducted survey of business men throughout the country than anecdotal evidence from the hon. Gentleman.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) is Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, so he speaks with great knowledge. He made it clear that it is vital that we should preserve our competitive edge in Europe. That is precisely what our policies are designed to achieve.
In the short three hours that have been available to us, this debate has brought out the short-termism of the Labour party. As usual, it is unwilling to take a long-term view. To the extent that the Labour party's vision is focused, it is focused on opportunism and quick fixes. That is and always has been the policy of the Labour party.

Mr. Brian Wilson: I am sure that the Minister will be interested to learn that I received today a list of eight engineering firms in one small area of Ayrshire that have been in liquidation since November. Does he agree that death is perhaps the ultimate form of short-termism?

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman and I were not in the House when the previous Labour Government held office, but the Opposition have always tried to pose as the friend of the manufacturing industry. When they were last able to exercise that friendship, they ensured that we had an average inflation rate of 15·5 per cent., and that manufacturing output went down. That is the result of short-termism.
Let me make it absolutely clear that no one denies that times are tough in the current economic downturn. It is necessary for times to be tough so that we can finally lick inflation. The true enemy of output is inflation. If it were to slip out of control, it would have a devastating effect on jobs, productivity and investment. All our policies are designed to lick inflation.
Let us try, if that is possible for the Opposition, to keep the debate in some perspective. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North said that I would talk about the transformation of British industry, and I shall not disappoint him. In the past 10 years, output has increased by nearly a quarter, productivity has increased by 60 per cent. and investment has increased by 25 per cent. It is a record of which to be proud. It is right to keep such matters in perspective, and we shall continue to do so.
We did not hear a great deal from the Opposition about our membership of the exchange rate mechanism. In the months leading up to our membership, they were its constant advocates. I have always been rather surprised at that, because surely such membership would prevent a Labour Government from retreating to their traditional boltholes of fiddling interest rates and devaluation. Such policies have been followed by every Labour Government since Attlee. Would they use such boltholes in the future, or would they slip out of the ERM? I do not believe that a Labour Government could keep to the disciplines of the ERM any more than an alcoholic could sip orange juice in a bar.
We heard precious little about policies from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). In summary, those policies are as follows: one throws in a state investment bank, a few quangos, a few controls, a few state subsidies, a few interest rate cuts, a few tax increases and a regional policy. What does one get? An industrial soufflé that collapses at the first puff of smoke. Such are the Opposition's policies—they have not worked before and they will not work again. The Labour party has not explained how its policies would satisfy the Commission.
Our policies are based on supply side economics. Since 1979, no fewer than 42 privatisations have occurred, which have transformed the services available to customers.
We have achieved tax cuts—the lowest rate of corporation tax in the industrialised world and a tax regime for small companies which is the envy of that world. We are determined to achieve the best environment in which prosperity and enterprise can be promoted, and we shall continue with the policies that will bring that about.
If we followed the advice of the Labour party and resorted to quick fixes and opportunism, if we let inflation rip out of control, there would be disastrous consequences for British industry. We shall not do that. We shall remain committed to our policies, which are the basis of a successful and enterprising British industry, well capable of meeting the competitive challenge of the single market and the opening markets in eastern Europe. We shall remain true to our policies. We shall stick to them, and we shall win through.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:

The House divided: Ayes 215, Noes 272.

Division No. 52]
[7 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Canavan, Dennis


Allen, Graham
Cartwright, John


Alton, David
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Clelland, David


Armstrong, Hilary
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cohen, Harry


Ashton, Joe
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Corbett, Robin


Barron, Kevin
Corbyn, Jeremy


Battle, John
Cousins, Jim


Beckett, Margaret
Crowther, Stan


Beith, A. J.
Cryer, Bob


Bell, Stuart
Cummings, John


Bellotti, David
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cunningham, Dr John


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Dalyell, Tam


Benton, Joseph
Darling, Alistair


Bermingham, Gerald
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bidwell, Sydney
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Blair, Tony
Dewar, Donald


Blunkett, David
Dixon, Don


Boateng, Paul
Doran, Frank


Boyes, Roland
Douglas, Dick


Bradley, Keith
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Eadie, Alexander


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Eastham, Ken


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Buckley, George J.
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Caborn, Richard
Faulds, Andrew


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fearn, Ronald


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)





Fisher, Mark
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Flynn, Paul
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morgan, Rhodri


Foster, Derek
Morley, Elliot


Foulkes, George
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fraser, John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fyfe, Maria
Mullin, Chris


Galbraith, Sam
Murphy, Paul


Galloway, George
Nellist, Dave


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


George, Bruce
O'Brien, William


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
O'Hara, Edward


Godman, Dr Norman A.
O'Neill, Martin


Golding, Mrs Llin
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Gordon, Mildred
Patchett, Terry


Graham, Thomas
Pendry, Tom


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Pike, Peter L.


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Prescott, John


Grocott, Bruce
Primarolo, Dawn


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Quin, Ms Joyce


Henderson, Doug
Radice, Giles


Hinchliffe, David
Randall, Stuart


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Redmond, Martin


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Home Robertson, John
Reid, Dr John


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Richardson, Jo


Howells, Geraint
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hoyle, Doug
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Rogers, Allan


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rooker, Jeff


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Rooney, Terence


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Illsley, Eric
Rowlands, Ted


Ingram, Adam
Ruddock, Joan


Janner, Greville
Salmond, Alex


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Sedgemore, Brian


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Sheerman, Barry


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kennedy, Charles
Short, Clare


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Skinner, Dennis


Kirkwood, Archy
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lamond, James
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Leadbitter, Ted
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Leighton, Ron
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lewis, Terry
Soley, Clive


Litherland, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Livingstone, Ken
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Livsey, Richard
Steinberg, Gerry


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Stott, Roger


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Strang, Gavin


McAllion, John
Straw, Jack


McCartney, Ian
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


McFall, John
Turner, Dennis


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Vaz, Keith


McKelvey, William
Walley, Joan


McLeish, Henry
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McMaster, Gordon
Wareing, Robert N.


McNamara, Kevin
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


McWilliam, John
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Madden, Max
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Maginnis, Ken
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Marek, Dr John
Wilson, Brian


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Winnick, David


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Worthington, Tony


Martlew, Eric
Wray, Jimmy


Maxton, John



Meacher, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Meale, Alan
Mr. Thomas McAvoy and


Michael, Alun
Mr. Frank Haynes.


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)



NOES


Adley, Robert
Alexander, Richard


Aitken, Jonathan
Alison, Rt Hon Michael






Amos, Alan
Fookes, Dame Janet


Arbuthnot, James
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Forth, Eric


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Ashby, David
Fox, Sir Marcus


Baldry, Tony
Franks, Cecil


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Freeman, Roger


Batiste, Spencer
French, Douglas


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fry, Peter


Bellingham, Henry
Gale, Roger


Bendall, Vivian
Gardiner, Sir George


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Benyon, W.
Gill, Christopher


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Body, Sir Richard
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gorst, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Boswell, Tim
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bottomley, Peter
Gregory, Conal


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Grist, Ian


Bowis, John
Ground, Patrick


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Grylls, Michael


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hague, William


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Brazier, Julian
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hanley, Jeremy


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hannam, John


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Buck, Sir Antony
Harris, David


Budgen, Nicholas
Haselhurst, Alan


Burns, Simon
Hawkins, Christopher


Burt, Alistair
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Butler, Chris
Hayward, Robert


Butterfill, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Carrington, Matthew
Hill, James


Carttiss, Michael
Hind, Kenneth


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Chapman, Sydney
Hordern, sir Peter


Chope, Christopher
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Churchill, Mr
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Conway, Derek
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Irvine, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Irving, Sir Charles


Cope, Rt Hon John
Jack, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Janman, Tim


Couchman, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cran, James
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Critchley, Julian
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Kilfedder, James


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Day, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Devlin, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Dicks, Terry
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knowles, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knox, David


Dover, Den
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Dykes, Hugh
Latham, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Lawrence, Ivan


Emery, Sir Peter
Lee, John (Pendle)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Evennett, David
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fallon, Michael
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Favell, Tony
Lilley, Peter


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)





Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Shersby, Michael


McCrindle, Sir Robert
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Soames, Hon Nicholas


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Speller, Tony


Maclean, David
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stanbrook, Ivor


Madel, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Malins, Humfrey
Steen, Anthony


Mans, Keith
Stern, Michael


Maples, John
Stevens, Lewis


Marland, Paul
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Mates, Michael
Sumberg, David


Maude, Hon Francis
Summerson, Hugo


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Miller, Sir Hal
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Miscampbell, Norman
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thorne, Neil


Moore, Rt Hon John
Thurnham, Peter


Morrison, Sir Charles
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Moss, Malcolm
Tracey, Richard


Mudd, David
Trippier, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Norris, Steve
Viggers, Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Page, Richard
Walden, George


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Patnick, Irvine
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Warren, Kenneth


Price, Sir David
Watts, John


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Wells, Bowen


Rhodes James, Robert
Wheeler, Sir John


Riddick, Graham
Whitney, Ray


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Widdecombe, Ann


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wiggin, Jerry


Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)
Wilkinson, John


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wilshire, David


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Rost, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela
Wolfson, Mark


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wood, Timothy


Sackville, Hon Tom
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Yeo, Tim


Sayeed, Jonathan
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)



Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Tellers for the Noes:


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Mr. Nicholas Baker and


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Mr. Neil Hamilton.

Question accordingly negatived.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Government on policies which have transformed economic performance and, over the last decade, achieved a faster rate of output and investment growth than in Germany, France and in Italy, the largest increase in manufacturing productivity of any major industrial country, record levels of exports, a record number of businesses, the highest ever number of people in work and an unemployment rate below the average of the European Community; welcomes the threefold increase in shareholders since 1979; and commends the resolve of Her Majesty's Government to bear down on inflation and to continue with the supply side policies which have contributed to these achievements.

Famine (Sub-Saharan Africa)

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I have to inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I beg to move,
That this House believes that the Government's famine relief efforts are totally inadequate to meet the plight of 20 million people threatened with starvation in sub-Saharan Africa; demands that the Government allocate forthwith additional resources for emergency relief; and calls on the Government to initiate a concerted international initiative to avert a devastating human disaster and to build the foundations for reconstruction and development throughout Africa.
Ever since last summer, many voices have been warning of disaster in Africa. Calls for immediate international action have multiplied, but the famine threatening 27 million people in sub-Saharan Africa continues to pass unnoticed, while the world is busy elsewhere. The international community has the resolve to fight military aggression, to fight for liberty and security in the Middle East, but that sense of responsibility and solidarity should extend across the world to the poorest countries, as well as to the oil-rich countries. It is time for an international attack on hunger and famine.
The situation in Africa is desperate. Last night, revised and terrible famine predictions were issued by the World Food Programme—27 million people in 25 countries are threatened with famine, and 3·9 million tonnes of food aid are needed. Food stocks have run out in the Sudan, and are about to run out in Ethiopia. If pledges of food are not made in the next few weeks, and delivered promptly, people will starve to death. They may not be starving on our television screens, because all the camera crews are in the Gulf, but hundreds, then thousands, and possibly hundreds of thousands of people, will die from lack of food. Indeed, relief workers are warning that this year will be even worse than 1984–85, when 1 million people died.
In western areas of the Sudan, 85 per cent. or more of the crop has failed and now water sources are drying up. Already, people are scavenging for berries. The World Food Programme estimates that 7·5 million people face food shortages. There is no time to lose. This is the second year of drought and crop failure in north-eastern Ethiopia. Some 6 million people are at risk of famine. In Liberia, up to 400,000 people are trapped in Monrovia, the capital, where food stocks are exhausted. Outside Monrovia, 1·7 million people have fled their homes and need assistance. In Angola, this is the third successive year of drought and the worst in 40 years. Some 15 years of war between the Government and UNITA have brought virtual economic collapse. Nearly 2 million people are at risk, and last October it was estimated that 11,000 people had died of hunger.
In Mozambique, one quarter of the population are affected by drought and war. An emergency appeal was launched in April and, since then, the situation has worsened dramatically. At least 2 million people need feeding, but the appeal has not been fully met. The number of people at risk is rising all the time—30,000 Somalians have fled their homes and taken refuge in Ethiopia. Other countries in the Sahel such as Mauritania and Burkino Faso have suffered drought and face food shortages. In all, 25 countries are affected.
The Gulf crisis is making the situation even worse. It has diverted the attention of western Governments, journalists and the public. The pre-Christmas oil price rise made it even more expensive to ship food in, transport it by truck on long and tortuous journeys or fly it by plane to regions cut off by fighting. In total, the World Food Programme estimates that it needs $300 million just to transport the necessary food to the Sudan. With donors providing only a fraction of the cost needed, higher transport costs mean fewer journeys and more deaths.
A bold international initiative is needed now. By now, there should be hundreds of relief workers in place and food sorties every day. Trucks and planes should be carrying loads of food to every remote and hungry region. There is no doubt that the international community has the capacity and generosity to respond. We have seen this not only in the Gulf but in eastern Europe. The European Community allocated £525 million worth of food to the Soviet Union at the first hint of food shortages there. That much would meet half the needs of Ethiopia and the Sudan.
The response to the problem in Africa has been pitiful and donors have been unbelievably slow to react. The food crisis there has been emerging since last summer. Early warning systems are in place and all the worst fears were confirmed by the December crop report issued by the Food and Agriculture Organisation exactly one month ago. Still, the international response has been almost deafening in its silence.
Emergency aid given in 1984–85 was too little and too late to save 1 million lives. This year's response has been even smaller. Can the Minister explain why so little action has been taken? The situation in the Sudan is particularly urgent, yet it is ignored. Even if the aid is allocated now, it will take months to arrive. As chair of the donor group in Khartoum, the Government have a special responsibility to initiate international action, so what exactly are they doing?
There is no doubt that the Sudanese Government's ruthlessness and intransigence hampers international relief work. But, with an effort, agencies can still reach hungry people. It has been reported that the Sudanese Government's support for Saddam Hussein has left western Governments unwilling to make that effort. Will the Minister confirm or deny those reports? Can he give an assurance that food aid will be given according to people's needs, not the Government's political stance?
The urgency of acting now simply cannot be exaggerated. However great our concern about events in the Gulf, 27 million people must surely deserve our attention, too. With a crisis on this scale, the Government's response so far—£20 million—is completely inadequate.
The Minister for Overseas Development gave an assurance in a letter to The Independent on 10 January that a Gulf war would in no way affect the Government's readiness to continue to provide emergency aid for famine stricken countries, and insisted that sufficient funds could be found from within the overseas aid programme of £1·6 billion. But if that is true, can anyone explain why she has apparently resorted to allocating money out of next year's budget?
When we first heard of the Minister for Overseas Development's announcement yesterday in Addis Ababa of £8·5 million of famine relief for Ethiopia, naturally we all welcomed it, although other countries desperately need


aid as well. I had every confidence that the aid would be distributed as quickly as possible and would mean the difference between life and death for many Ethiopians.
But now it has been suggested that the money is out of next year's ODA budget and will not be available until April. Nothing could be clearer proof that the Treasury appears to have refused additional funds and the ODA itself does not have the money. As the Minister for Overseas Development admitted yesterday in a written reply to me, the ODA's contingency reserve has all been used up, and only 1·5 per cent. of the humanitarian relief budget is unallocated.
The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs recommended in 1988 that, in exceptional emergencies, such as that in Ethiopia, the ODA budget should be increased as necessary. But perhaps the Government do not consider famine facing 27 million people an exceptional emergency. The starving in Ethiopia will have to wait until our next financial year rolls around and the starving in other countries will have to wait even longer. I warn the House that many will not survive the wait.
An emergency on such a scale deserves an exceptional response. We do not expect the Ministry of Defence to deal with the Gulf crisis from existing budgets. We should not expect the ODA to cope with a famine crisis without new money. The ODA has already taken £60 million out of the pot for developing countries to give to Egypt, Jordan and Turkey. But if this year's budget had already been spent in famine-stricken countries, would the Government have told Egypt, Jordan and Turkey to wait until April?
The £20 million of famine relief so far sounds like a lot of money until one considers how much there is to be done. I challenge anyone to say tonight that we cannot afford to do more. The £20 million allocated so far is less than the cost of just one of the Tornados lost in the Gulf war. The cost of all five Tornados lost in action, at more than £100 million, would buy enough grain to feed for one month all the 27 million people facing starvation. It is estimated that the total cost of emergency relief to see 10 million Ethiopians and Sudanese through to the next harvest is just over £1 billion—the estimated cost to the United Kingdom of the Gulf war so far.
Of course, money alone is not the answer. It must be well spent and carefully distributed. Maximum diplomatic pressure must be maintained on Governments and rebel forces to reopen or to keep open the supply routes. Every available supply route must be used. I am concerned that the £2 million-worth of non-feed assistance announced by the Minister in Addis Ababa yesterday will all be used for transport on the Ethiopian Government's side and none will go to support the cross-border route. Can the Minister give us any assurance tonight that every route is being supported?
Given the demands for food aid elsewhere in the world and the cost of transporting food, I hope that the ODA is considering buying food from other countries in Africa, such as Kenya, that have a surplus this year. Buying such surplus promotes African agriculture in one place while feeding hungry mouths in another.

Mr. Jim Lester: I am following the gist of the hon. Lady's argument, but I find it hard to reconcile what she is saying with what the Minister said in Addis Ababa when announcing £8·75 million for immediate—immediate—food into Massawa. We all know that Massawa is in rebel hands. Therefore, the food will be

shared between Government people in Asmara and the others in Eritrea. It can hardly be the case that we are denying people in Eritrea the food that they need, because part of the agreement to use Massawa as a port to bring food to the area means that it is shared between both sides, and it is immediate.

Mrs. Clwyd: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right. I wish that the Minister for Overseas Development were here tonight and had made her statement in the House so that we could have questioned her. But the news that we have from some of the aid agencies is that they have already been told that the money will not be available until April. If the contrary is true, I expect that the Minister will say so.
Given the demands for food aid elsewhere in the world and the cost of transporting food, I hope that the ODA will obtain food from every available country in Africa. There is no point in supporting people during this year's famine if we do nothing to ensure that next year they can support themselves. After last year's drought in northern Ethiopia, many families had sold their tools and animals and eaten their seeds and were particularly vulnerable to this year's drought. They must be helped to restock next time round.
Once the emergency is over we cannot simply sit back and wait for the next one to strike. I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House and many people in Britain are asking how it is possible that famine is here again and whether emergency appeals will be made year after year. The public want to save lives now, but they want to know what can be done to prevent emergencies in future. What have we learnt since 1984 and what should we do differently? To answer that, we must look at the causes of famine.
Drought is certainly one factor. Since the 1970s, Africa's rainfall has been half the level of that in the 1950s, but not every drought causes famine and, as in Liberia and Mozambique, not every famine follows a drought. Conflict has caused much of the present crisis. Years of war have destroyed agricultural production, roads, railways and markets and have left millions of people homeless and landless. In southern Africa, conflict and destabilisation have left 1·5 million dead and 8 million homeless and £34 billion-worth of damage. Ending the conflict is a precondition for stability and prosperity. Every ounce of diplomatic energy should be invested in peace negotiations in Mozambique, Angola, Liberia, Ethiopia and the Sudan.
Another major factor is the decline of agriculture across much of Africa. In the 1960s Africa grew more food than it needed. Now it imports 55 per cent. of its wheat. The number of hungry and undernourished people in Africa has nearly doubled since the 1970s to more than 150 million.
The weather is part of the problem, but so is the total environment. Eighty per cent. of Africa's soil is fragile and easily damaged. Half its forests have disappeared this century—70 sq km fall prey to the desert each year. Grinding poverty has left the poor with no option but to overcrop and overchop trees. Governments have paid little attention to tree planting, land terracing and local water management. The result of years of neglect is all too apparent in the Ethiopian highlands. Forests have disappeared and the best soil has eroded, and it is


estimated that that loss of soil and nutrients is reducing Ethiopia's annual agricultural output by at least 1 million tonnes—the amount of food aid needed this year.
Revitalising the country's agriculture will require a massive shift in priorities by African Governments and by donors. It will require investment in local initiatives, by women farmers in particular, in environmental protection, local marketing and distribution, training, and new technology. Agricultural research must focus on the basic crops of life—wheat, rice, millet, maize, sorghum, roots and tubers. It must build on the farmers' existing needs and skills.
The macro-economics pursued by African Governments has squeezed agriculture through low food prices, and inadequate levels of investment must be corrected. Is agricultural investment a priority in all the British Government's policy dialogues with their African counterparts? The west has dumped its surplus food where it is not needed and has kept world prices artificially low. The European and American Governments' subsidies have have put African farming families out of work. At the same time, the richer countries of the world are pouring carbon emissions into the atmosphere and causing global warming. The consequences will hit African agriculture particularly hard.
It is a matter not just of how food is produced but of the way in which it is distributed. It is crucial that it is available to the poor at a price that they can afford. After all, there is plenty of food in the world. In 1990, cereals output reached a record, yet there is hunger on a massive scale. Five hundred million people live at a dangerous level of hunger. Last year, an estimated 51 million people died of hunger, thirst and related preventable diseases. The reason was that they were poor.
United Nations figures released two weeks ago show that last year, average incomes in Africa declined for the twelfth successive year in a row. The provision of jobs, incomes and basic social services for the poor should be not just one more objective but the objective.
It is not only the poverty of the people but the poverty of Governments that undemines food security and allows shortages to develop into famine. In Asia, where half the world's hungry live, much greater falls in food output have not led to famine, because Governments there were able to afford to invest in food stocks, distribution networks, and large public work programmes in providing incomes for the most vulnerable. They also had the foreign exchange to import food rather than wait for donors to pledge food aid.
In Africa, where a region's debt can equal its gross national product, debt servicing takes one third of all export earnings, and trade amounts to only 2 per cent. of the world's total. Governments there cannot afford to protect their own people from famine.
When International Monetary Fund resources were expanded last May to cover lending to eastern Europe, countries in arrears were told to pay up or face expulsion and a place on the international financial black list. They included Liberia, Sudan and Somalia—all of which are in the grip of famine.
Unless there is a greater reduction of multilateral debt in particular and a liberalisation of western markets, African recovery and reconstruction will be impossible.

Politics as well as economics plays its part. Those who have studied the history of famines claim that there is hardly a case in which famine has occurred in an independent and democratic country that has an uncensored press. Pressure from a free press and an unbridled opposition is one way of making Governments listen to the voices of those who are suffering.
Over the past 20 years, development policies on Africa have failed to promote reconstruction and to focus on the fundamentals of soil, food, and incomes for the poor. Structural adjustment programmes have slashed Government investment, social services and imports—leaving the poor without jobs, health care, education and essential materials such as fertilisers. In the 1980s, drought and economic crisis derailed development, making sheer economic survival the top priority. The United Nations Under-Secretary-General, Professor Adediji, emphasises that we can no longer put on hold Africa's long-term development. Economic diversification, agricultural investment, health and education must be the foundations of a new era of regional growth and development—but recovery, let alone reconstruction, will be impossible unless international donors are committed to playing their part.
Over the past few weeks, there has been much talk of a revamped role for the United Nations in promoting peace and prosperity throughout the world. No continent is more in need of an international reconstruction effort than Africa. There is a need now for a partnership between the Governments and citizens of Africa and those of the west. Signs of political change are already emerging. Multiparty democracies and peace negotiations are increasing and apartheid is crumbling. There could be no better time for promoting economic revival, hand-in-hand with political and social transformation.
A former president of Nigeria described Africa in the 1980s as a continent of dereliction and decay—a continent moving backwards as the rest of the world forged ahead; the third world of the third world. The Africa of the 1990s must be different—and it can be, if its reconstruction is a genuine priority for north and south. Democracy, prosperity, peace and equity are essential to the harmony of today's interdependent world. We have realised our interdependence with eastern Europe, and the new European bank for reconstruction and development represents an imaginative response. We have long realised our interdependence also with the middle east. Why do we remain blinkered when it comes to Africa?
No continent is more deserving of an international effort under the new-found leadership of the United Nations. Poverty, hunger and a massive waste of human lives and potential ought to be the first targets for the new international community that is emerging. The Government talk every day about international co-operation and a new role for the United Nations. Are they ready to translate their words into action for the benefit of the poorest people in the poorest continent in the world?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): I welcome this opportunity to focus the attention of the House on the appalling food crisis that confronts sub-Saharan Africa. I will deal first with one or two points raised by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs.


Clwyd). My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development was told yesterday by World Food Programme officials in Addis Ababa that the food pipeline in Ethiopia is full for the first quarter of 1991. The 10,000 tonnes of food that was the subject of her announcement is available immediately, to go through Massawa in 1990–91. The remaining 25,000 tonnes will be provided throughout 1991, and we shall need to feed people until the harvest in October of next year.
Of the £8·75 million which was announced yesterday by my right hon. Friend, £2 million is available immediately for the non-governmental organisations—both for people in government areas and for those in rebel areas. The £1·5 million in food aid for Massawa is available now. There will be a 50:50 split of all the food for people in government and Eritrean People's Liberation Front areas. Aid worth £250,000 will be available immediately for Somali refugees in Ethiopia, and £5 million-worth of food aid will be available throughout 1991, from 1 April.
As for the surplus of food from other countries, all avenues for providing food swiftly are being explored by British NGOs and international relief agencies, and there are no restrictions on buying from other countries.
I thought that it would be helpful to give those facts at the outset. I recognise that I have not answered all the questions asked by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). She will realise that I am not the greatest expert in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on these matters. I hope that, with the leave of the House, I shall have an opportunity to say a few words at the end of the debate, when I shall be able to deal with any further matters.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am sure that the House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks in response to questions raised by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). In case there is a difference of opinion between Christian Aid and other aid organisations, and the World Food Programme, would it be possible for the Minister to suggest that, in the next few days, officials have discussions to ensure that there is a common understanding of the facts? I am sure that the Government would want to continue to respond if it turns out that there is a deficit.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful suggestion, as it makes obvious sense, and I can reassure him and the House that my right hon. Friend the Minister and officials from the Overseas Development Adminstration have regular discussions with NGOs and other voluntary agencies.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the £2 million that the Minister announced today available out of this year's allocation, or will it be subtracted from next year's allocation?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It comes from the allocation which was announced yesterday—I cannot answer that question specifically now, but I shall seek the opportunity to deal with it later.
I am grateful for this debate, because it gives me a chance to state clearly how the Government view the situation in sub-Saharan Africa, and how they have responded. In my remarks, I shall restate some of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development in her statement on 19 December.
I make no excuse for doing so. Of course she is sorry that she is not able to be here today to take part in this important debate, but I know that hon. Members are aware of her present mission, and I am sure that they approve of her actions.
The second reason that I welcome the debate is that, at a time when—as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley said—minds are quite understandably on the Gulf, and the safety of our forces engaged in the conflict there, it is helpful that our discussion should take place and help to focus attention on other regions of the world where people are living in misery and danger, where our help is badly needed and where we are playing a major role.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Minister will understand that we are often asked, perhaps in simplistic terms, how the United States and Britain can spend all this money on arms, but at the same time not help Liberia, the horn of Africa and other countries. How does he answer that question?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would not wish this debate to stray beyond the areas in question. The hon. Gentleman will understand from the remarks that I am about to make that we are giving a substantial amount and that substantial sums of money have been announced recently to deal with the problems.
As I am sure the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will agree, it is important to demonstrate that, in spite of the Gulf, famine in Africa is not forgotten. It is certainly not forgotten by the British people, who are responding generously and will no doubt respond even more generously to the crisis in the horn.

Mrs. Clwyd: The Minister said that the food pipeline in Ethiopia is full for the first quarter. If that is the case, why give all the £8·5 million to Ethiopia, when the food pipeline in Sudan is nearly empty? The Minister also said that some food aid is available now, and some will be available after April. Does that mean that the £5 million will come out of next year's budget, and if so, does he admit that the Overseas Development Administration has run out of money?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall deal with those questions in my concluding remarks.
The British people have already given more than £3·5 million to the appeal launched on 8 January by the Disasters Emergency Committee, and I am sure that they will want to do more.
This year there are serious food shortages throughout sub-Saharan Africa, but it is clear that by far the greatest problem is in the Horn of Africa. There is a growing risk of tragedy in Ethiopia and Sudan, and possibly also in Somalia, on a scale even greater than that of 1984–85.

Mr. John Bowis: I am grateful that my hon. Friend has mentioned Somalia. However, a new situation is arising there—parts of north-west Somalia have been untouched by aid agencies for the past two years, and it is possible that the population there will face severe difficulties, especially after the exit of President Barré, and the attempt to form a new government. Perhaps some refugees will go back into the country. I do not expect him to make a cash commitment today, but would he and his colleagues consider Somalia's needs carefully and bring forward a programme as urgently as possible to meet the needs of that especially devastated country?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I assure my hon. Friend that it will be considered carefully. The situation is highly uncertain in Somalia, especially as the departure of President Barré has added to the anarchy which already exists in Mogadishu. Clearly my right hon. Friend has always said that policy throughout sub-Saharan Africa will be considered in the light of developments, and as the situation becomes clearer, I am sure that she will attend to that matter.
I am sure that hon. Members will understand if I do not give way too often, as I have already given way several times and I do not want to prevent other hon. Members from making speeches.
In 1984–85, between 5 million and 8 million people were at risk in Ethiopia, and, as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley said, about I million people died. The United Nations World Food Programme now estimates that at least 20 million people are at risk of starvation through sub-Saharan Africa in the next few months—up to 14 million of them in the horn.
After the disaster of 1984–85, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee pointed out in its excellent report on famine in the horn of Africa that the underlying causes of famine were clear. They described recurrent drought, high rates of population growth, poor farming techniques, misguided, wrong or unsuitable agricultural policies, and environmental degradation. All these set the scene for a perennial threat to the adequacy of food supplies, and to the well-being of those in the affected areas.
Both 1989 and 1990 were extremely bad years. A fragile region like the horn simply cannot sustain two successive years of poor rains and crop failure, especially when the situation is aggravated by continuing civil war.
In both Ethiopia and Sudan, the parties concerned in the conflicts have, in the past, given priority to military, rather than humanitarian considerations. In Somalia, as has been said, widespread violence and disorder are making any relief effort impossible to mount at present.
In Ethiopia, nearly 6 million people face the threat of famine over the coming months. The threat is greatest in the north, and Eritrea is most at risk. Crops have failed for the second year in succession. Farmers have no reserves on which to draw. Traditional ways of coping, such as seasonal migration to the coastal areas to benefit from the coastal rains, are not possible, because of the security situation. Signs of severe food shortages are emerging: in Eritrea, the market price of grain is extremely high, and livestock sales have increased. There are similar problems in Tigray and north Wollo, as well as in other regions that are not traditional famine areas.
The position is equally grave in Sudan, where there has been a poor cereal crop for the second successive year. There are food shortages in all regions except the east, but the situation is most severe in Darfur, Kordofan and the Red sea hills area. A total of 7·5 million people are at risk.
The scale of the problem in the horn is, without doubt, greater than 1984–85, but we are better prepared now than we were then to cope with it. Since the famine of 1984, national, international and Brtitish relief agencies working in Ethiopia and Sudan have established excellent field reporting systems. To those have been added sophisticated techniques, such as satellite imagery. Together, those gave us earlier warning of the serious crop failures in 1990, and of impending food shortages in 1991.

Mr. David Alton: Last year, the NGOs were aided very successfully by the disaster unit of the ODA, and a magnificent job was done in providing transport to take relief aid and food from this country to Sudan. Because of the efforts being put into other areas in the horn of Africa, the NGOs, especially Christian Aid and the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, fear that the money will run out and that food will be prevented from reaching the parts of Sudan that are not at present highlighted as a priority. Can the Minister give as an assurance—if not immediately, in his concluding remarks—that, if it is a question of money, the money will be provided by NGOs in this country, at least for the transportation of food?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall deal with that in my concluding remarks.
The improved techniques have allowed a greater lead time, which has enabled the donor community to pre-position food stocks and organise transportation to keep the food pipelines full and moving until the end of last year. Undoubtedly, that helped to minimise the mass migration that contributed so heavily to the tragedy of 1984. It has saved lives. The challenge now is to keep the food pipeline evenly stocked through to October, and to ensure that food is distributed to those who need it and for whom it was intended.
In 1991, nearly 1 million tonnes of food will be needed for Ethiopia and 1·2 million tonnes for Sudan to feed those at risk until the next harvest. About a third has been pledged so far, but, even with guarantees for all the food needed, we would still need to tackle its distribution, and that is no easy task.
In Ethiopia, the problem of food distribution is compounded by the fact that the regions hardest hit by drought are in the areas where the military conflict is most intense. Thanks to strenuous negotiations over the past year, we have achieved major improvements in the channels for transporting food to these communities.
At the end of 1989, we faced the prospect of delivering all relief supplies to Eritrea and Tigray from Sudan, which posed formidable logistical problems. Early last year, under pressure from the international community—my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development played an important part in this—Government and rebel sides agreed to open the southern line. The line is now working remarkably well: it is approaching its monthly target of 15,000 tonnes and, in all, has moved 110,000 tonnes of food. Government and rebels have recently agreed to allow trucks to distribute food off the main route, which will significantly improve direct access to those in need.
Throughout 1990, an expensive but necessary airlift was mounted to reach the vulnerable groups in the Asmara area. It has reached up to 700,000 people, and has helped to keep many alive. We have provided £450,000 towards its cost. But perhaps the most important recent breakthrough in the relief effort has been the reopening of the port of Massawa. Relief operations were greatly hampered when the EPLF took the port in February last year; negotiations to reopen it continued throughout the year, under United Nations auspices. In December, both sides agreed to accept a United Nations vessel shuttling between Dijbouti and Massawa with food shipments.
The first relief vessel arrived in Massawa on 8 January. The food has been unloaded and trucked to Asmara, and


the boat is returning for its next delivery. The opening of Massawa is a major breakthrough in the relief operation, and we shall be pressing for greater use of the Massawa route.
The machinery for relief is therefore operating reasonably well in Ethiopia, and is ready for the major relief effort that will be needed in 1991. The prospects for Sudan, however, are very much worse. The Government there have a record of economic mismanagement; the security situation is very poor, as is the Government's human rights record.
The Sudanese Government have only just acknowledged that they have a food crisis. They have hampered Operation Lifeline Sudan—the existing relief operation to the war-torn south—and there is little evidence that they will co-operate fully in the major relief effort needed for this year. They have been slow to give assurances on the distribution mechanisms to be used for relief supplies. Those are essential: without them, relief supplies simply cannot be delivered.
The British Government's response to the crisis emerging in the horn has been a major one. We have provided food and relief assistance from our aid programme, and have acted through diplomatic channels, with our European partners and others, to try to ensure that supplies get through to those at risk of starvation. Our actions have been both prompt and effective, thanks in large measure to the close working relationships we have with the main British voluntary agencies that are working in Ethiopia and Sudan.

Mr. Tony Worthington: The Minister keeps telling us, with a gravity that I am sure we all share, just how much worse the present situation is than that of 1984–85, In his concluding remarks, will he tell us the scale of the resources that have been made available this time, and how much was made available in 1984–85?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall do so if there is time—well, there will be time.
The agencies to which I have referred have a vital role to play in getting the aid to the hungry. My right hon. Friend has sent me a message from Addis Ababa specifically to ask me to pay tribute to the dedication of the British and other NGOs working in Ethiopia, and to the courage and selflessness of the staff of the United Nations agencies in Ethiopia, which has been crucial in opening up the Massawa-Asmara route. I am very happy to do so, and I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to join me.
In 1990, we made available over £28 million to Ethiopia and Sudan in food and emergency aid, including assistance for refugees. In addition, we contributed to the cost of relief aid provided by the European Community. We responded quickly to immediate needs as they arose. In the autumn, the World Food Programme launched an interim appeal for 100,000 tonnes of food for Ethiopia to cover the first quarter of 1991. We were one of the first donors to respond with 5,000 tonnes. We also gave £500,000 to help with transport. In Sudan, we provided 10,400 tonnes of food to Kordofan.
We also alerted other donors to the impending crisis. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development raised the issue at a meeting of Ministers of the European Community's development council in

November. She warned that only an effort by the international community as a whole would avert a major crisis this year.
In December, we received the preliminary findings of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation on likely food needs in Ethiopia and Sudan in 1991. As my right hon. Friend reported to the House on 19 December, the assessments were bad, and she immediately made a further £5 million available to those two countries as an initial response to the new crisis.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has been in Addis Ababa. During her she discussed the crisis with President Mengistu. She also met Ethiopian, British and international relief workers, who underlined the need to keep the food pipeline full arid to provide more help with trucks and spares. As a result, as hon. Members know, she has announced a package worth £8·75 million. That package comprises 35,000 tonnes of food aid for 1991, which is worth £6·5 million, including the immediate shipment of food for the newest relief route through Massawa; £2 million for non-food items, including transport; and £250,000 to be provided through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for the growing number of Somali refugees who are fleeing to Ethiopia from the appalling conflict in that country.

Mr. George Foulkes: The Minister has already said this.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I know, but I wish to state it clearly in my speech.
The new package brings to more than £46 million the total of relief aid provided to meet needs in Ethiopia in the past two years. It will not be the last in the current crisis. We are prepared to provide more emergency aid as further needs emerge.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will the Minister address the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)? The Government are said to have committed £20 million in relief for the people of sub-Saharan Africa since October last year. That amounts to less than £1 per starving person. On average, British taxpayers are spending £20 million a day on lost equipment and spent ammunition in the Gulf war. Is the Minister proud to be a member of a Government whose priorities seem to be weapons of war and mass destruction rather than putting food in the mouths of starving people?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman respects the democratic process. He must accept that the will of the British people is clearly to deal with the situation in the Gulf, although he disagrees with the conduct of the war. He must accept that. I must show today—I do so without shame, regret or reservation—that the Government's contribution to the crisis in the horn of Africa is substantial. If it is met by other countries that are capable of giving similar amounts, the problems will be tackled.
It is less easy to see what we can do for Sudan. We have helped in Kordofan. As part of the £5 million package announced on 19 December, we shall provide food aid arid help with transport in Darfur and the Red sea hills. We are prepared to provide more help under the 1991 food aid programme, but we must have some assurances on


distribution. We are working very closely with international and British voluntary agencies to secure those assurances and to see what more we can sensibly do.
Britain is taking a lead in mobilising the new relief effort for the horn, but a long-term solution to the problems of the horn, as hon. Members know, depends on ending the civil wars. The drought and crop failure in Ethiopia have not been caused by civil war, but civil war has crippled the efforts to help. We have, as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley urged, taken every possible step to urge all the parties in both countries to seek early peaceful solutions to their differences, and we shall continue to do more where we can.
The rest of Africa poses grave problems, and we must not overlook what is happening in other countries. In Mozambique and Angola, disaster threatens. Years of internal conflict have brought misery to millions and made refugees of thousands more. They have wrought havoc with the economies of those countries and crippled agricultural production. Poor rains have added to the problems.
Provisional figures in Mozambique show that it is likely to need 350,000 tonnes of food aid for free distribution in the coming year. Another 700,000 tonnes will be needed for sale in local markets. The cost of transport, distribution and associated relief activities is estimated at nearly $100 million.
In Angola, until recently the conflict has made it difficult even to begin calculating the extent of the need. The United Nations estimates that up to 2 million people—a fifth of the population—are at risk. Food aid requirements for the six months to the end of March have been estimated at more than 100,000 tonnes.
In response to last April's emergency appeal for Mozambique, we pledged 10,000 tonnes of food aid and £3·5 million-worth of other relief assistance. We announced a further £500,000 of food aid in December. In the same period, we pledged a total of £4 million, through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, for the support of refugees from Mozambique in neighbouring countries. Since 1987, we have given nearly £60 million in response to that emergency.
It has proved far more difficult to get assistance to those in need in Angola. For that reason, we warmly welcome the agreement that was reached last year by both sides to the conflict on the United Nations special relief programme for Angola. We responded promptly to the subsequent United Nations appeal, pledging £700,000 for food aid and a further £500,000 for other relief needs. We have also agreed to help to meet the cost of a team of UN relief co-ordinators. Our assistance since late 1989 totals £2·2 million. We regret the recent decision of the Government of Angola to suspend the special relief programme. I hope and believe that that is a temporary setback. We have urged the Government to reinstate it as soon as possible.
In Angola and Mozambique, we shall continue to do what we can to assist, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development is considering what further help she can provide under the 1991–92 food aid programme.
Another major emergency where we are helping is in Liberia. As it attempts to recover from appalling civil

strife, the international agencies have been providing considerable emergency aid. Since February last year, Britain has provided more than £2 million. We are probably the second largest contributor to this emergency. We have fully funded a relief team provided by the United Nations disaster relief organisation and the first six months of operation of a new emergency aid programme set up by the Save the Children Fund.
We have also contributed to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to help with its programmes for more than 1 million Liberian refugees who have fled to surrounding countries.
I have recited many grim facts and figures, and I should like to end more positively. As I have already pointed out, peace and reconciliation are preconditions before we can hope to see an end to recurrent famine and a beginning to real improvement in the situation of those at risk. In Ethiopia, the peace process is progressing slowly. Agreement between the Government and the EPLF on the reopening of Massawa was a major step forward. It was not an easy decision for either party. Let us hope that that signals a new effort to reach a just and lasting settlement in that country.
In Angola and Mozambique, we have seen real progress in recent months towards ending the years of conflict and laying the foundations for a just and enduring peace. We welcome those developments whole-heartedly, and shall do all we can to encourage further progress. We stand ready to play our part in the task of reconstruction and rebuilding, which peace will make possible.

Mr. Mike Watson: We are considering a problem of grave proportions, as both my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and the Minister recognised. I look forward to the Minister's response and he will have to be moreforthcoming and revealing than he was in his opening remarks which sorely disappointed Opposition Members.
Since last October, when there were warnings of widespread food shortages, the Government have, prior to today's announcement, come up with just under £20 million, most of which has gone to Ethiopia. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley said, that totally underestimates the scale of the problem and works out at about £1 for each person facing starvation.
During the crisis in Africa in 1984–85, which received so much publicity and to which the people of Britain and the rest of the world responded so well, the Government provided aid of £36 million at today's prices. In that famine 1 million people perished. It is suggested that as many as 27 million might perish in the present famine. However, the Government have made available not much more than half the funds—at 1984–85 prices—that they made available during the last famine. That simply is not enough.

Mr. Lester: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the amount that we spent over the whole of the 1984–85 period. That was the total sum at the end of the emergency. We are now talking about initial sums at the beginning of an emergency. The two sums are not comparable.

Mr. Watson: I do not accept that. I quoted the figure for the period to October 1989.
We are approaching the end of the financial year, and the Minister has just announced that he is not aware whether the £8·7 million announced yesterday will come under this year's budget or next year's budget. It is a safe assumption, although I should be glad to be contradicted about this, that that sum will come from next year's budget. My comparison was relevant. We hope that much more will be made available.
The cost of our efforts in the Gulf is also relevant. At this time, our efforts are costing in excess of £1 billion. It has been calculated that that money could feed for the next year the 10 million Ethiopian and Sudanese people who face starvation. We must look at what is happening in terms of priorities and ask bluntly whether it is more important to spend money dropping bombs on Iraq or on feeding the people in Ethiopia and Sudan. I am concentrating on Sudan and Ethiopia, although 1 am aware of the problems in other countries.
A primary aim should be for our Government to provide more emergency aid, notwithstanding what they have done so far, because the present situation is special. Additional ODA funds should be made available and we must be absolutely certain what year those funds refer to. It is not good enough to say that more money is being made available unless it is clear where that money is coming from.
The United Nations should also be involved, as we are not simply talking about a United Kingdom effort. The effort should be worldwide. For the first time, there appears to be unity within the United Nations. We should use that new-found unity to promote a reconstruction effort in the horn of Africa. We should use that unity and influence to bring about ceasefires in the civil wars that have ravaged Liberia, Mozambique, Ethiopia and Sudan and which have such catastrophic effects on attempts to feed the populations in those countries.
We should use the United Nations in the way that it was intended to be used when it was established. Why cannot the United Nations encourage broad-based development in economic terms? We are aware of the role played by the World bank. However, we should use the unity in the United Nations to bring together nations that can afford to contribute and which have surpluses available that the countries in sub-Saharan Africa so desperately need.
The most extreme example of need is Mozambique. Mozambique is far and away the world's most aid-dependent economy. The official development assistance given to that country accounted for 76 per cent. of its gross national product in 1989—in comparison to the 11 per cent. average for sub-Saharan Africa. That gives us an idea of the scale of the problem facing Mozambique. That country is still ravaged by civil war and refugees are still flooding both ways across its borders. At least 60 per cent. of the population of Mozambique live in what is officially described as absolute poverty. Ironically the demand for aid would increase if a peace agreement were reached, because of the development aid that would then be necessary.
The announcement by the Minister for Overseas Development in Addis Ababa today is welcome, but it is not enough simply to highlight what the United Kingdom is doing. The Government have a broader role in bringing together an international response.
So far, the international effort has been woefully inadequate. For example, the World Food Programme has estimated that 1·2 million tonnes of food are required for

Sudan alone this year and yet by the middle of January only 10 per cent. of that had been pledged. With the Gulf war raging, there is no sign of that increasing dramatically. However, it must increase and the Government should be taking a lead to ensure that that happens.
The Government pledged £5 million last year, but that is not enough for Sudan. The Foreign Secretary is shuffling back and forth across Europe with a begging bowl seeking financial assistance for our efforts in the war raging in the Gulf. That may be necessary, but is it any more necessary than the need to rattle the can for those who desperately need food in Africa?
What efforts are the Government making? Are the Government and the Minister for Overseas Development going to demand that other western nations put their hands in their pockets, not just to buy bombs and planes and make up some of the billions of pounds that we are spending on the Gulf war, but to feed the starving people in sub-Saharan Africa? When the Minister replies, I invite him to tell us what efforts we are to make with our European and western colleagues in that respect.
At a time when relief agencies around the world are overstretched simply dealing with the refugee problems emanating from the Gulf—problems which are likely to get worse before they get better—it is clear that they do not have the resources, unless there are additional funds, to begin to tackle the problems.
The Minister for Overseas Development was reported as saying on 10 January that the war in the Gulf would have no effect on the amount of ODA money that will be made available. Today's announcement and the fact that there appears to be a knock-on effect into the 1991–92 budget makes it clear that, while additional funds can be found for the war in the Gulf, no attempt is being made to do the same for overseas aid, particularly for Africa.
I cannot state too strongly that I believe that special aid must be made available to deal with the problem in sub-Saharan Africa. I want to finish by quoting one of those people who face starvation. Goodness knows, he may have already died. I refer to a farmer in Adi Caieh, southern Eritrea. Only two months ago, he told a Christian Aid programme officer:
My fields are as though they have been freshly planted. I have harvested dust. It rained only twice in the whole year—on 5 July in some villages and on 8 August in another. We are depending on God's will and on those who bring us food.
The Government must not only answer that desperate cry but ensure that their colleagues in the EC and in the western world do so as well.

Sir Timothy Raison: The House is completely agreed about the desperately serious situation that faces us and about the vital importance of the United Kingdom playing a substantial part in meeting it. There are shades of difference among hon. Members, and one concerns the Gulf. It is completely understandable that everybody should feel that it is a tragedy to have to spend money on bombs when we might spend it in a more constructive way. However, if we do not stand up against the regime that is embodied by Saddam Hussein, we shall create exactly the sort of conditions that we are lamenting in Africa. There is an overwhelming priority to resist Saddam Hussein and to carry out the United Nations mandate.
It would be a pity if that matter were to distort or muddy our important debate on what is going on in the horn of Africa and in other parts of Africa. We are all acutely aware of the irony that we are beginning the international decade for natural disaster reduction. We can see what an enormous task lies ahead of us during the decade.
We are grateful to the Opposition for the debate—it is extremely timely. It is sad that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development is not present. I am sure that she would like to be with us, but we must understand the value of what she is doing. The House genuinely appreciates that she is deeply committed to solving the problems of Africa. No one could question that for one minute.
The situation is clearly becoming desperate, and it is crucial that there should be an adequate and substantial relief operation to meet it. The value of this debate is that we are able to say that clearly. We will, of course, continue to say that clearly during the months to come, but we have heard from my hon. Friend the Minister a helpful elucidation of what the Government are doing.
When I was Minister for Overseas Development, one had to bear in mind the fact that there is often a limit to the rate at which one can disburse aid. It is perfectly reasonable to say that some money is to be spent this year and some in the next financial year, and to relate that to the practicalities and logistics of what can be done. So far, I have heard nothing to suggest that the Government are handling the matter in a way that is inept or incompetent, or which shows a lack of will. Of course, it is the job of the House to keep up the pressure on the Government to make sure that they do what must be done.
The aim of the debate is to make sure that none of us—the Government, hon. Members or the public at large—forgets Africa when we are obviously preoccupied with the Gulf. The debate is therefore valuable from that point of view. It would be unforgivable to forget Africa. There are all sorts of reasons why we should not do so. Fine moral reasons dominate the debate. There are historical reaons of every kind why we should continue to be involved in Africa. In the long term, there are even reasons of self-interest. Although it cannot be said that we can see much net gain out of parts of Africa such as the horn in the short term, there is great potential in Africa, and it would be very sad if we did not do our part to try to bring out that potential. The present situation is dire, and the minds of people such as myself are bound to go back to 1984, to which comparisons have been made.
We all remember the film that was made by Michael Buerk and Mahammed Karim, which focused public consciousness on what was going on in Ethiopia in 1984. Having been to the Korem camp, where the film was shot, I shall never forget what I saw. I flew over the completely bare terrain and saw nothing at all alive—a completely uncanny experience. I saw the desperate frailty of the children, their mothers and their grandparents. I heard—or rather, did not hear—the astonishing, uneasy, total silence that pervaded the camp. Nobody had the energy to talk, laugh or anything else. One smelt the all-pervading smell of dysentery. One was aware of the shortage of cover

on cold nights, and saw the tantalisingly slow-moving queues for water. It is appalling to think that all that is happening once again.

Mr. Lester: My right hon. Friend quotes a moving example. One of the lessons that we learned from that experience is to continue food aid and to keep people in their villages. Since that experience, nobody has moved into camps to be fed.

Sir Timothy Raison: The world at large learned lessons. It has already been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Minister that we have learnt important lessons, and that is all to the good.
One cannot help recalling that the sheer indestructibility of mankind lies at the heart of the response. It was noticeable in Ethiopia and the Sudan that the people who worked as hard as anybody on relief work were the Ethiopian and Sudanese doctors. It was not a matter of help from outside—there was help among the people themselves. One was very moved on many occasions by the determination on the part of the people who were suffering so much to fight to try somehow to hold things together.
I remember at the Korem camp talking to one old boy through an interpreter. He was a Copt. He was sitting down quietly reading a book. I asked him what he was reading, and he said that he was reading the Bible—the story of David and Goliath. I could not help thinking that the determination to fight evil lay at the heart of what was done. Of course, help is desperately needed today, and it is crucial that we provide it.
There are, as the hon. Lady said, three main factors in the current situation. First, there is the drought—the sheer lack of rain. Secondly, and more important in some ways, there is the dire poverty of those areas. After all, if one has money, one can buy food. The world is full of food at present. The lack of resources to obtain food is crippling those countries. Thirdly—it is the great tragedy—there are the facts of politics and civil war. Goodness knows, they were bad enough in 1984–85, when civil war raged in Ethiopia, the Sudan and many other parts of Africa. Somehow or other, that aspect seems to have got more and more desperate since then, and is intractable in the Sudan above all.
We are determined to make sure that food is made available. We can draw on our transport experience. In the 1984–85 famine, we decided that it was through the provision of transport that we could probably make our greatest contribution. The most publicised aspect was the successful Hercules operation. There are many other ways in which we tried to help the railways and the ports to handle food, and with some success. It is essential that we should make sure that we have mechanisms for ensuring that food can not only be carried to starving countries but that it can be distributed within them.
It is encouraging that, by all accounts, the quality of the co-operation that is taking place has improved compared with the early days of 1984. It took some time to set up an effective system of co-operation then. A remarkable Finn called Kurt Jansson was in charge of developing a system of co-operation in Ethiopia. I always thought that he was the man of the match in that episode. We have learnt some lessons.
The situation in the Sudan is particularly appalling. For the time being we have had to end our development programme there. The tragedy is that, in 1989, we spent


more than £30 million on aid in the Sudan. Because the Government there are so totally destructive, it is becoming almost impossible to do anything worth while.
It is hard to say what the answer is. However, we must do all we can to support the voluntary and international agencies and to keep up our own efforts. We must bring all possible political pressure to bear. Political pressure has had some beneficial results in the case of Ethiopia. As my hon. Friend the Minister has said, the Ethiopian Government have been making genuine and reasonably serious efforts to ensure that a certain amount of food gets across the line. In addition, the port of Massawa has become available. That is encouraging, but we shall have to keep the pressure up.
Somalia is another country in which the threat is very great. I do not think that anyone mourns the collapse of the Government of Siad Barré, which must have been one of the worst anywhere in Africa. Nevertheless, we must face the fact that, for a time, there may be chaos in their wake. That too, will make the problem more difficult.
We must recognise the crucial importance of this area. We have an overwhelming moral duty to try in every possible way to relieve it. Then we shall have to start thinking about the long-term prospects for more successful development than we have so far seen in these parts of Africa.
I do not have time to embark on a discussion of the different means of development. I believe that, since the 1986 United Nations conference in New York, there has been more wisdom in the African approach to development and to the approach in many other parts of the world. The Africans themselves have accepted that the economic policies that they were pursuing were likely to be disasterous—certainly they were ineffectual—and came to see the importance of markets, realistic currencies, and so on. They came to understand the importance of paying a proper price for food.
In Africa, there is now a better understanding of how the problem might be tackled. Both in the short term and in the long term, it is crucial that the Government continue to play as active a part as possible. I, together with many of my hon. Friends, will constantly remind them of their obligation.

Sir David Steel: I begin with a word of sympathy for the Minister. He told us that he was not the greatest expert on this subject, and it is hardly unkind to say that he went on to prove it. It is not easy to take on a brief that is not one's own. Indeed, the House ought to consider that it has had the benefit of dealing with a Minister outside the Overseas Development Administration. It is no bad thing if other Ministers in the Foreign Office are aware of the concerns of hon. Members about this very important topic.
I congratulate the Opposition warmly on having chosen this subject for debate. It is very disappointing that, amid the unfortunate alarums and excursions of the Gulf war, this issue should be so severely overshadowed, particularly in the news media. I welcome very much the speech of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), who opened the debate, though I cannot applaud her tactics. I agree with the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) that our job is to keep up the pressure on the Government.

We ought to ask ourselves quietly whether the best means of maintaining the pressure is to table condemnatory motions. I personally should prefer exhortatory motions.
The Minister of Overseas Development, amid the excitements in the Government party, indicated her determination not only to stay at the job but to do so on a full-time basis. We know of her personal commitment to these issues. Our job is constantly to propel her into the arms of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Every time she comes out through the revolving door at the front of the Treasury we should shove her back and make sure that she stays even longer in the arms of the Chancellor.
It is unfortunate that the wording of the motion on which we shall have to vote implies that it is the Government who are responsible for feeding 20 million people in sub-Saharan Africa. We know perfectly well that it is an international responsibility. I think that I am right in saying that we in Britain are subscribing nearly one quarter of the £80 million that the European Community has given to Ethiopia. I agree that we should do more, but so should others.
It is a mistake to call for further emergency aid forthwith just a day after the Minister's announcement in Addis Ababa of a good dollop of extra aid. In spite of these complaints, we shall, with some reluctance, support the motion, with a view to keeping up the pressure on the Government. However, in future debates on aid it would be better to try to achieve a motion around which the great majority of hon. Members could rally.
Two hon. Members who are in the minority of 35 in respect of the Gulf war have referred to the costs of that war in relation to aid. According to the figures of the Ministry of Defence, the daily cost, before the war had actually started, had risen to £3·6 million and, in addition, non-recurring expenditure on equipment, transport, and so on which, by the middle of January, had amounted to £650 million. These are astronomical sums, and the expenditure will have increased since the war started. What these hon. Members have to ask themselves is whether, if the war had not happened—if this expenditure were not necessary—such sums of money would have been devoted to the solution of the problems of sub-Saharan Africa. We all know, of course, that they would not.
The answer to the question posed by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is that, while there is an international will to deal with the problem of Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, the political will does not yet exist, either nationally or internationally, to deal sufficiently urgently with the problems of sub-Saharan Africa. That is very regrettable, and I hope that debates such as this will do something to generate the necessary public and political will to deal with these issues.
The Minister was absolutely right in saying that the problems of sub-Saharan Africa result from a combination of matters with which man cannot really deal, such as the unfortunate repeated drought, and those matters for which mankind, unhappily, is wholly responsible, such as the civil strife that exists throughout the continent. In a peculiar way, these two factors are often interdependent.
I am very struck by the fact that the peace accord that has been achieved in Eritrea between the Government and the rebels, with the help of the United Nations, means that food convoys are getting through to that province. However, I am told that there is a danger of a lack of fuel to get the food to where it is needed. There is a severe risk that, if the convoys fail to get through, the whole fragile


peace will collapse. There is a relationship between the humanitarian effort to get food into these areas and the hope that, in time, there will be political stability and peace there.
In the Ogaden province, I understand, about 500,000 people are at immediate risk and distress sales of cattle are taking place, at which the sums raised are only about 10 per cent. of normal value. It is bad enough, as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley said, to sell tools and equipment, but, once the cattle have been sold, these people have nothing at all. Reaching that area involves a round trip by road that takes 20 days. I am told that, at the moment, only one aircraft is committed to carrying supplies for the area. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) was right to refer to the importance of transport, in terms of the availability of vehicles and fuel and of aircraft for the remoter areas.
I am particularly pleased that the amount of aid announced by the Government yesterday, and enlarged on by the Minister today, includes a modest, but important, figure—£250,000, I think—for the Somali refugees in Ethiopia. The last time we debated these issues we had had to pull our limited number of aid workers out of Somalia altogether because of the deteriorating situation there. Like the right hon. Member for Aylesbury, I do not mourn the departure of the Government of Somalia. We wish the new President well in his efforts to restore stability quickly so that the aid programme, modest though it may be, can be started again.
Help for the refugees is important. I draw the Minister's attention to the need to give similar help to refugees from the Sudan who come into the southern part of Ethiopia. There are serious problems in providing water for those who have come across the border.
To continue on the theme of transport, Christian Aid says that there are also difficulties in getting food supplies to southern Sudan because of the costs of the operation. Similarly, in Mozambique the cost of fuel is the problem in the airlift to Nyasa province. The more that one examines the areas of conflict such as Somalia, Ethiopia, Mozambique and Angola, the more appropriate and timely seems the quotation:
Man's inhumanity to man
Makes countless thousands mourn!
That is more true of Africa today than any other part of the globe.
I do not wish unnecessarily to repeat points that have already been made, but the United Nations programmes need to have an element of additionality when emergencies arise. I am told that at present the United Nations World Food Programme does not have that element and that the help that has been given internationally is simply coming out of routine resources. Particularly in Africa, far more must be done by the Finance Ministers of the world in their regular meetings, to deal with debt relief. I have not checked the recent figure, but a year or two ago sub-Saharan Africa was repaying in debt exactly twice the amount that it received in official aid from the developed world. That is outrageous nonsense. Debt relief, which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) mentioned, should have far higher priority.
We should, as the Minister did, give our unstinted praise to the voluntary and professional workers in the non-governmental organisations which are helping

throughout Africa. I never cease to be amazed and full of admiration for the work that they do. The large organisations such as Oxfam, Christian Aid and CAFOD are well known, but no less valuable is the work done by the smaller organisations such as the Intermediate Technology Group and indeed, the small charity Africa Now, of which I, together with hon. Members from other parties, am a sponsor. Yesterday, I happened fortuitously to have a meeting with some people from that small charity who have come back from field work in Zimbabwe and Kenya—areas which are not the most affected by the emergency. They described work that is going on in a small way to encourage self help. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley referred to the importance of such work. Self-help and particularly women's groups are set up in rural areas of Africa. Basic elementary technology is produced, such as water tanks in villages. It is amazing how much one can enhance people's basic quality of life very simply by the provision of clean water.
Simple plants have also been established to turn milk into a transportable commodity. It is called Lala milk in that part of Africa. New manually operated presses have been produced to press oil seed. All these are basic pieces of technology which do not require much maintenance and which people can operate in self help groups.
Through the Minister, I want to send the message to the Overseas Development Administration that I hope that it will continue to give generously to small organisations engaged in such valuable fundamental work, because that work is continuing and, if encouraged throughout the continent, it can bring so much hope where at present there is despair.

Mr. Jim Lester: I begin by declaring an interest. I am a member of the board of Christian Aid, I am on the advisory boards of CARE, and Save the Children, I work closely with Oxfam and I am also on the advisory board of the Hunger Project. I declare those interests because some of my remarks involve the non-government organisations and their work.
I agree with much of what the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) said and particularly with his comment about exhortation rather than condemnation. I should have thought that there was not an atom of difference between hon. Members who follow these matters and that we all agree that we must ensure that the famine of 1984–85 does not happen again. It is wrong to invent and bring in other issues such as the Gulf war, which is bad enough but is nothing whatever to do with our scheme to deal with famine in Africa.
It is equally important that we should recognise that in our Minister for Overseas Development, we have a committed person who is out there working day and night and whose energies and efforts are supported by everyone in the House. Any suggestion that we are back-sliding, that we are not generous enough or that we are not sufficiently involved is a mistake.
I am aware, because I am often involved, of the co-operation and shared intelligence between the NGOs—which are critical to our efforts to provide humanitarian relief—and the Government. All our humanitarian aid to Ethiopia and the Sudan goes through the NGOs. Therefore, it is important that we stay onside with them. I have attended many meetings at which they


have shared their intelligence from the field and the Government have shared theirs. As a result, we have made progress together. We need one another.
I suspect that some of the criticisms made and the reasons behind this condemnatory motion are based on the fact that after my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development announced the £5 million of additional funds in December in response to the figures issued about the food required, many NGOs submitted schemes, not all of which have been accepted. I understand that £9 million-worth of requests were made for Ethiopia alone. Not all schemes have been worked out and not all are feasible. Some have been accepted. The additional £2 million that was announced in Addis Ababa for transportation is available immediately to fulfil other schemes. That may be the background to the debate. There is a great desire among certain NGOs to get on with the job and move ahead, but not all their requests have been met immediately.
I am committed to the belief that the British Government and any other Government who seek to operate humanitarian relief in countries where we may not necessarily support their Government's policies cannot do without our British NGOs, which are an example throughout the world for their dedication, professionalism and work. I am sure that all of us who are involved with them would agree with that.
My hon. Friend the Minister was kind enough to refer to the Select Committee report of 1988. As one who has travelled in the area affected by the famine in 1984–85 and again in every year until 1988–89, I am conscious of the reasons for the problems. There was an illusion after 1984–85 and after people's enormous generous response through Band Aid and other organisations that we could cure famine and that the matter was finished. Yet those of us who have perhaps studied the subject over a longer period know that the problem is getting worse, not better. In our conclusion to the 1988 report, we said:
But droughts will occur again—the rains have failed or been inadequate in three of the last four years—and, with a fast-growing population, poor farming techniques, widespread deforestation and land degradation, the consequent famines are likely to be increasingly severe. And by each successive drought the resilience of the people and of the land is diminished. It is a spiral which, if unbroken, must result in tragedy.
That was the background in 1988, and we cannot be surprised that we now face a desperate situation in the horn of Africa.
We made recommendations in 1988 which reflected precisely what has been said in the debate today. We said that we should increase our effort to stop the conflicts and involve the United Nations, the Soviet Union and anyone else who might exert an influence on any of the warring parties in any country. We recognised conclusively that the cycle of drought and famine in northern Ethiopia will never be broken while military conflicts continue. There is an obvious reason for that.
We may want to get on with development aid and encourage Governments to invest in their own agriculture and infrastructure, but they will not do so if they are concentrating on a civil war and using their resources in that civil war instead of concentrating on the interests of their own people. The Select Committee recommended that as a result of Sudan's vulnerability to famine, it needed strategic food stockpiles. The Committee said:

We recommend that the ODA in cooperation with other donors consider without delay how such stockpiles can be established.
Stockpiles were established, but last year they were sold for hard currency by the Sudanese Government to propagate their war.
One could make recommendations from these green Benches. We may be concerned, but, unless we can bring about a fundamental change in attitude, both to the conflict and to their internal policies, our ability to break the spiral from getting worse is severely restricted.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) said, we learned a great deal from 1984–85. We have seen food distribution carried out in many areas in the horn of Africa, and we have seen the probity with which the people in the villages have been encouraged to stay in their homes. They come for their ration cards and collect food on a month-to-month basis so that they can stay at home. We learned that moving people into camps was one reason for the increase in deaths through disease and through sheer exhaustion.
We have learnt about food pipelines. My hon. Friend the Minister spelt out clearly that pledges are never complete at the beginning of a problem. They carry on month by month. It is essential that we do not have gaps and that we use all the port facilities. Many of us were disturbed, when we went to Massawa in 1984–85, to find that the port did not have the equipment to deal with the grain which was being landed in bulk; nobody had sacks to put it in. That is an example of the practicalities of ensuring that the food pipeline moves smoothly and that the food is distributed quickly and efficiently.
One central element is continued monitoring. All members of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs who are responsible for monitoring both ODA and Government policy will continue to monitor on behalf of the House, with the background of experience which we have gained over the last 10 years.
We have just recently visited Mozambique and all the front-line stations. The lesson we learned is that Mozambique is an underdeveloped country with tremendous potential. It is only the conflict which has destroyed the will and the ability of the people to grow their own food. One has only to fly over the Zambesi to see the tremendously fertile delta which could grow enough food to feed not only the population of Mozambique but half of Africa if people could only get there and start to develop it. One flies over acres of coconut trees which are completely unharvested. We must recognise that all those countries, perhaps with the exception of Sudan, have the potential to grow their own food.
Ethiopia is relatively underdeveloped. Famine affects about 10 per cent. of its population who have traditionally lived in the high grounds of Tigray and Eritrea and traditionally have divided their land between their children, thereby impoverishing the soil, but there is plenty of fertile soil in Ethiopia. Many of us who have been to Diri Dawa in the south know that there are valleys with water, which have not been developed. Those valleys have a potential for growing food. One comes back to the necessity to break the spiral and end the wars.
In regard to money, I am prepared to accept the Government's assurance that funds will be provided as needed. It is a great mistake to get into the constraint of a narrow annual budget. What matters is whether the money is there to buy the food, to fund the transport and to make


sure that it is delivered. Whether the money is in one budget or the next is not as relevant as whether the money is there when it is most needed.
All of us on the Select Committee have said repeatedly that a budget for disaster ought not to be solely a part of the ODA's budget, which can be stretched only so far in a disaster. We have repeatedly recommended that the ODA should be able to have a contingency fund for emergencies rather than just its budget. Although we are satisfied from our investigations that money is not necessarily diverted from the ODA budget, it is certainly diverted from potential development aid in order to satisfy the immediate demands of disaster. We have always had a tremendous regard for the disaster relief system within the ODA and its ability to move quickly to assist.
No one has yet referred to the international community and where food comes from. Famine was averted in 1987–88 because food arrived and was distributed. The Soviet Union was a major contributor of food aid in that emergency. Having regard to current events in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, it is unlikely that the Soviet Union would be a major donor now. Therefore, the United Nations and the Food and Agriculture Organisation must ensure that the shortfall is picked up by others.
I assure the Government that the Select Committee will be keeping a close eye on developments. So will the all-party group and all hon. Members who take an interest in the subject. We are reassured that the Minister for Overseas Development is wholly committed and that the matter is being taken seriously. We are reassured by her understanding of what needs to be done in the long run if we are to break the cycle.
In 1984–85 there was a tremendous response by the public when they saw the photographs and the television coverage mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury. However, we are conscious that such a response will not be repeated continuously. There is a sense of donor fatigue affecting Governments who may say, "Not again; we have already given aid." I suspect that there is even greater donor fatigue among the general public, particularly when they see continuing civil wars.
The one message that comes from that is the definition of one's neighbour. In an interdependent and shrinking world, one's neighbour is not just the person next door in the street or in the next town; none of us would see anyone as close as that starve. In an interdependent world, one's neighbour is anyone who is hungry. I hope that that would be the response of a generous public who have already subscribed £3·5 million to the appeal of the major donors. That will be distributed.
There is a partnership between Government, the NGOs, and the public. There is an international partnership between the United Nations and the European Community. Only in that way can we fulfil our responsibilities to the poor people living on the fringes of society.

Mr. Tom Clarke: A consensus appears to be emerging, but I fear that I must disappoint the House because I cannot go along with it. In recent weeks I have tried to be helpful to the ODA by tabling a

question or two and the replies have led me to feel much anger. This debate is an appropriate occasion to express that anger.
I have seldom been disappointed by the speeches of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), but I cannot go along with the remarks that he made tonight. I recall that he made good speeches as leader of the Liberal party and that he was one of the first to remind the British people that we were well behind in the objective of donating 0·7 per cent. of gross national product. I should have preferred to hear such a speech tonight.

Sir David Steel: I made it on 19 December.

Mr. Clarke: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not repeat it this evening. I think that he is mellowing in his new role of elder statesperson.
I shall refer to another knight who may have influenced the right hon. Gentleman's speech. Almost every right hon. and hon. Member who has spoken in this debate has referred to the crisis in the Gulf, as one might have expected. If my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) has done the House a service by pushing for this debate and by her excellent speech, followed by a similarly excellent one from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson), it is that she has encouraged the House to focus on a major issue—that 27 million people are in danger of dying now.
When the House returned after the Christmas recess on 14 January and the Leader of the House in a statement about the business for that week said that there would be a debate on the Gulf, I was given the opportunity to ask a question. I pointed out that we might be having a debate of this kind. That led the distinguished sketchwriter for the Daily Mail—we genuinely enjoy his contributions from time to time—Colin Welch, to tell his readers that I had helped to create some confusion. He did not see the link between the problems in the Gulf and 27 million people facing death or, at least, poverty and malnutrition.
I was anxious to remove any confusion, so I wrote to the editor, Sir David English, offering to do a piece which might help to remove the confusion which I had inadvertently caused. I received a courteous reply from him and the House may be interested to hear what he said. It tells us what the press are thinking during these difficult times. Sir David said—we seem to have a lot of Sir Davids in these debates—
I understand the point that you make but let me tell you as a professional journalist that, at a time like this, the public are interested solely in the major event. There would be no interest in other crisis areas at this time. So I would not be interested in commissioning or publishing a piece such as you suggest. I am sorry.
Yours sincerely, Sir David English".
[Interruption.] Before my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley returned to the Chamber, I said that I thought that she had done us a great service in initiating this debate.
If that is the thinking of the British press today, as Sir David indicates, it is all the more reason why we should address these issues, as our motion does in a modest way. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will feel able to support us in the Lobby.

Sir David Steel: I have said that I will.

Mr. Clarke: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's declaration that he will join us in the Division Lobby tonight.
It is clear that sub-Sahara has suffered from negative growth in recent times. Can we offer any great hope for the future? We are entitled to ask that question. According to the World bank, by the year 2000 there will be almost 250 million poor people in sub-Sahara—some 100 million more than in 1990. That contrasts with most other parts of the world, where poverty is stable or in steep decline. Therefore, this is an immensely serious issue.
We are told by the World bank that, by the end of this century, sub-Saharan Africa will account for 30 per cent. of the developing world's poor as against 16 per cent. in 1988. In some regions, only 10 per cent. of the rural population enjoy safe access to water.
In Sudan, the largest country in Africa, the life expectancy is 50 years and the GNP per capita is the price of an elegant dinner for four at some fashionable watering hole in the west end—I doubt that there are any such fashionable watering holes in that part of Sahel.
In the past decade the GNP in Sudan fell to levels well below those prevailing in the early 1970s—it is not a developing economy, it is a decomposing one. About 8 million people are now at risk, at this hour, from starvation. The famine is real, but the Sudanese Government, of course, prefer to fight their pathetic mediaeval battles than to demand help, while the west would prefer to turn its head away. It is a callous conspiracy resulting in a terrible silence—a famine with no voice, a pain that has no cry. It is a pain that leads me and my hon. Friends to the real anger that I expressed at the beginning of my speech.
Once again we are treated to one of those sounds as regular and as oddly comforting as a football roar—the familiar sound of Africa in agony. For the Sudanese people, the term "nouvelle cuisine" would mean actually finding something to eat. Children are being born in the Sahel now who will not see out the century with most of the rest of us, and for entirely preventable reasons. There is not much to show for civilisation so far, is there? We are entitled to repeat that question.
The United Nations world food programme estimates that at least 20 million people are currently under the threat of famine in Africa, perhaps many more. Despite many warnings, the west is slow to notice a famine. All the evidence suggests that that is so. We ignored the hunger in Ethiopia for three years until a British television crew filmed the famine camp in October 1984. After the famine of 1984–85, aid dollars flowed in, but agriculture received only one quarter of the total aid and less than 2 per cent. went into environmental restoration projects such as water conservation or irrigation schemes. That is not the way to solve such problems.
In 1989, the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in his introduction to the 25th anniversary review of British aid, said:
There have been many success stories and some failures. We and others have learned the lessons.
How on earth can we have learned those lessons when famine threatens Africa yet again, and when our response has been so pitifully slow and inadequate, yet again?
As a result of answers that I have received to recent questions to Ministers I am forced to ask why, if Ministers are aware of the lessons of the past, do we give just 14p per

head to the people of Angola, 25p to the Ethiopians, 26p to the Liberians and less than £1·50 each to the people of Mozambique and Sudan?
We have heard a great deal about so-called new aid packages. We have heard mention of the Toronto terms, the Trinidad proposals and the Baker, Brady and even Major initiatives. Ministers, economists and academics continue to fly the globe going from conference to conference, meeting to meeting—they are a sort of jet-aid set.
All this seems to make little difference to the people who, year after year, continue to starve. The Government public relations team is yet again swinging into frenzied action, and self-congratulatory press release are being fired out in all directions. We are, however, entitled to examine what they mean.
Let us put into perspective what the west has done. Africa's per capita incomes have fallen for 12 successive years. Last year its external debt rose to $272 billion—more than three times the value of its total exports. Seen against these statistics, even if development aid from all sources were divided equally, every African would receive just $20. That fact should shame us all, especially when we recall that, famine apart, last year almost 530 million Africans did not get enough to eat to stay healthy.
If the Government have learnt their lessons, as we have been told they have, why has per capita aid, including emergency relief to Ethiopia, been reduced by almost a third since 1985, as published figures show? That does not sound like learning lessons to me.
I did not know whether to laugh or cry at the proud boast of the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), the Minister for Overseas Development, who told the House on 14 January:
The World bank is the leading development institution and it is at the cutting edge of change for improvement in the social and economic conditions in developing countries."—[Official Report, 14 January 1991; Vol. 183, c. 696.]
That statement will have been met with incredulity in the Third world as it continually struggles against debt, falls in commodity prices and conditionality.
The right hon. Lady must feel like the viceroy of a distant colony. She must keep up appearances and go through the motions, using the regal language of concern. It would be churlish to suggest that she does not do that well: she does.
Meanwhile, it must be said that the right hon. Lady's portfolio will be remembered more for the politicians who have passed through it in the last decade than for the money that passed on from it. It is widely assumed that the right hon. Lady will go on to greater things; so soon another Minister will come along ready to soothe the third-world lobby in the House and elsewhere, ready to treat us as if we were some sort of dead poets' society—worthy but peripheral, few but vocal, right but ignored. These debates are a metaphor for a society systematically taught not to care—a society taught by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) not to believe in itself. So how can we believe in other societies and their potential value to the universe?
How must the Minister feel in her heart of hearts as she reflects on the fact that her portfolio has been brutally disembowelled over the past decade, deprived of influence, cash and real meaning? How many civil servants ache with pride to recall that they worked at the ODA during the


Thatcherite decade? Once it was a coup to get a big job there; now it is a cul-de-sac for politicians and officials alike.
Does it matter that the sub-Sahara is hell's soap opera—that it is a scene of indifference incarnate? Yet it is the sad duty of Ministers to abseil up and down a long marginalised policy, not to mention mobilisation, priorities and determination. But to escape, they use words such as "can't" or "won't". There can be fewer jobs less worthy of telling one's grandchildren about than having been an Aid Minister during Thatcherism—except to say, "I got in and I got out."
I end on this note. Lloyd Timberlake in his extremely informative book "Famine in Africa" wrote:
Famine grows outwards like waves from a stone thrown into a pond.
It is a haunting image. It is about life, and death itself. That should be reflected in the way in which we divide the House tonight.

Sir Richard Luce: I share the frustration expressed by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) about the condition of Africa today. However, he is wrong to imply that the only or main way in which we can help to resuscitate the African scene is by the provision of aid. Unless African leaders are willing to solve their own political problems and to generate a climate that encourages economic growth and agriculture expansion, it will not be possible to achieve anything except a mitigation of the circumstances as best we can, with the humanitarian aid that we are rightly giving in the horn of Africa.
An interesting factor in our debate is the range of experience and knowledge of Africa across the Floor of the House. The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) had experience there in his younger days, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) was Minister for Overseas Development and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and many others all have experience of Africa.
I had my school holidays in the Sudan, which in those days did not experience the starvation that we see today. I happen to have been the last European district officer in Kenya. The only time I have had any fame was when President Mubarak, whom I met when I was a Minister, said to me, "Ah, I am glad to see again the last British imperialist in Africa." Then, for two and a half years I had the privilege of being Minister with responsibility of African affairs, in the early 1980s. All of us with experience of Africa have a great affection for the African people. All of us who see their experiences agonise for them. The hearts of the British people, let alone those of Members of Parliament, go out to the people of Africa.
We have had much evidence of the conditions in the horn of Africa—about 14 million people threatened with starvation, the need of 2 million tonnes of food aid, the background of desperate civil war and disputes in the Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia. The questions are: what can Britain do? What can the British Government do? The debate has rightly focused on humanitarian aid to deal with the immediate situation. We have heard that, in the past two years, we have provided £46 million to the horn of Africa, and my hon. Friend the Minister has set out the

scene on that. We can debate whether that is enough, but, if we want to avoid returning to this Chamber in two, three or four years' time, to have exactly the same debate all over again, we must solve these problems in the long term.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on her speech and on leading in this important debate. I am glad that she touched on some of the major longer-term issues. If we do not put our minds to them, starvation will continue. We need to do three things. First, as many hon. Members have said, we need to create a climate of political stability, which must include an element of democracy. By that, I do not mean Westminster-style democracy. I mean a system whereby the people of those countries can, by some mechanism, choose their leaders. Without that, all that one can forecast is that those who live by the sword will die by the sword, and violence will increase, as we have seen time and again in Africa.
Secondly, we must create in Africa the right environment for economic and agricultural development. Some African countries have done well in terms of agricultural development by the pursuit of sensible policies. For example, in recent years Ghana, Zimbabwe, Kenya and Malawi have done relatively well. If one examines their economic policies one can see that that success is because many of them have encouraged a good return on investment for the farmer and private ownership, and they give the incentive to those who own the land to earn a proper living. That increases agricultural production.
Thirdly, the African leaders need to show their willingness to accept external advice and help of a bilateral and multilateral nature if they are to help with the development of their countries.
How can we influence all this? If those are the three main factors that need to be dealt with in Africa by the African leaders and the African people, how can we in the west best help?
First, we in the developed world must with renewed energy, particularly at the culmination of the Gulf crisis, insist on a continuous dialogue between the developed countries and the leaders of the developing countries, through the mechanism of the United Nations and the EC and bilaterally, to see how we can discuss the best ways in which we can help them to solve their political and economic problems and obtain peaceful settlements of many of their internal problems. We are not imperialists. We cannot interfere. But we can offer our assistance and suggest ways in which we can help them if they can first help themselves.
Secondly, we should think seriously about developing the concept of a new corps of expert advisers from the developed world, willing and able to act in key positions in Africa and to give advice on practical problems, particularly economic problems, if they are invited to do so by African leaders. The United Nations can provide a good umbrella to assist that.
Lastly, the United Kingdom is well placed to play a prominent role in all this. We have a great deal of experience of Africa. Our voluntary bodies do a great deal. The British Council does a great deal. The Commonwealth Development Corporation does fantastically important work in terms of the economic development of those countries. Private investors can do a great deal, as can international bodies. I serve on the British committee of the United Nations International Children's Emergency


Fund, which does an important job with, for example, its immunisation campaign in Africa, in saving the lives of many millions of children in that continent.
But at the end of the day none of that can succeed unless there is a will to achieve things among African leaders and their people. If there is no will, none of this can succeed in the long term, but given that will, we must make it plain that we in the west stand ready to help in whatever practical way we can to enable them to solve their longer-term problems so that we in this Chamber never again have to debate the great tragedy of starvation in Africa.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: This has been a useful debate on a matter of great concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Yet again, the horn of Africa is facing mass starvation and hon. Members who were in the House in 1984–85, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) was, may well have a feeling of horrified deja vu.
I welcome the summary given earlier by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State of the leading role that Britain is taking in the relief effort in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly in the horn of Africa. I was horrified, but not a little reassured, by the statement by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development on 19 December last year in the House, when she catalogued the scale of the tragedy that is facing the horn of Africa, but also what Britain is doing to help, not least in mobilising action from our European partners.
It should be recorded that Britain was among the first to respond to the threat of famine when the first signs of the new crisis began to appear in autumn last year. When the Sudanese Government announced a food gap of no less than 75,000 tonnes at the end of October, it was reassuring that the Government announced on 6 November a grant of 400 tonnes of food aid for Kordofan. We have seen the practical results of that in the 5,000 tonnes from Britain that were delivered earlier this month.
Britain has also pledged 19,000 tonnes for Ethiopia to Food for Work through the World Food Programme, and a further 5,000 tonnes through CARE. Britain has also led the way in pledging food specifically for the new Massawa operation. I welcome yesterday's announcement in Addis Ababa by my right hon. Friend the Minister that £8·75 million will be made available to Ethiopia. Britain can be proud that the humanitarian aid that it has pledged to Ethiopia and Sudan since the beginning of last year totals £72 million.
I listened with growing incredulity to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), as she spoke about the need for freedom and democracy in Africa as though butter would not have melted in her mouth. I could not but agree with her sentiments, but they sit uncomfortably with the support given for decades by many Labour Members to African socialist regimes that increasingly relied on oppression and censorship to remain in power. They came increasingly to depend on the political and military intervention of the Soviet Union.
I ask right hon. and hon. Members to consider the very countries that the hon. Lady mentioned: Ethiopia, Somalia, Liberia, Angola, Mozambique, Mauritania, Burkina Faso, and Sudan. Almost every one of those countries has flirted disastrously with socialism, and not

one of them is a member of the Commonwealth. Therefore, we cannot be blamed, as we usually are, for all their present problems. Nevertheless, we are here expressing our humanitarian concern, as we always do, and determining what Britain can do to help.
I agree with the hon. Member for Cynon Valley that Africa had a food surplus in 1960, but today it has a food deficit—which is a sad commentary on that unhappy continent. Almost all the countries she mentioned were administered by European powers in 1960. Today, they have under their belts 30 years of independence, but also a record of incompetence, corruption, human rights violations, armed conflicts, and inspiration by politics—and socialist politics at that.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Most people will accept that my hon. Friend makes a fair point, but it is also fair to point out that, sometimes, the Afrikaner tendency in the Tory party supports countries that have not gone for democracy. What really works is democracy, and an avoidance of state socialism. Perhaps we can all learn from events of the past, and if the right wingers in the House attacked the right-wing regimes that are acting wrongly, and the left wingers attacked the left-wing regimes, that might be better than conducting a fight across the Floor of the House.

Mr. Foulkes: Hear, hear.

Mr. Arnold: I will answer my hon. Friend by saying that two wrongs do not make a right. I am restricting my remarks to the countries that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley mentioned.
In 1960—a year mentioned by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley—Angola and Mozambique were prosperous and their people were well fed, even if they were Portuguese colonies. With the collapse of the metropolitan power, those two countries did not achieve the democracy and freedom of which the hon. Lady spoke. Instead, they gained brutal Marxist regimes, economic destruction, and civil war. The Soviet Union dabbled in those troubled waters, frequently with the approval of Labour Members. If those countries are getting anywhere today, it is only because of western support and assistance—not least, British aid and technical assistance.
Ethiopia and Somalia are the most tragic of the countries mentioned by the hon. Lady, and they concern us most. They have also been the victims of socialism, repression, Soviet adventurism and civil war. At the time of the last famine in those countries in 1984–85, aid ships had to stand off from an Ethiopian port to allow Soviet arms ships to berth and unload their expensive and deadly cargoes. Those countries' economic infrastructures were neglected and destroyed, but Britain has again provided emergency aid. I should like to know what Italy, the former metropolitan power in Somalia, is doing to help. Mention was also made of Mauritania and Burkino Faso, which are both victims of drought and desert extension. What is metropolitan France doing to help them to overcome their problems?
Liberia, which was also mentioned, has long been a quiet country in west Africa. Uniquely, it has never been a colony of Europe, but was developed by former slaves from the United States. What are the United States Government doing to take a lead in trying to sort out that troubled country?
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Sir P. Luce), I believe that the House will continue to suffer the harrowing experience of responding to disasters of this sort. Until Africa puts its own house in order, we shall not get away from this succession of debates. African countries need freedom, free enterprise, free trade and the scope to develop their traditional economic strengths. What they do not need is socialism, which has failed in Africa just as it has failed in Europe. Nor do they need political and military adventurism. All we can do in the House is to help, advise and finance practical projects, and I am reassured to note that we are giving an excellent lead in that regard.

Mr. George Foulkes: Notwithstanding more recent remarks, this has been an excellent debate. I should like to thank the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) for his generous thanks to the Opposition for choosing this subject. Special credit must go to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd—[HON. MEMBERS: "Cynon Valley."] I am sorry, I shall try again—I have made that mistake many times before. Special credit must go to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd).
The debate has been notable for eloquent, powerful and knowledgeable speeches, especially from my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) and for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). It would be churlish of me if I did not mention the excellent speeches by the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison), who made a moving contribution to the debate, and the wise remarks of the right hon. Member for Shoreham (Sir P. Luce), and the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester)—I was about to say "my hon. Friend"; sometimes in these debates we feel an affinity with him. When he declares an interest, as he did today, we know that it is a real and not a pecuniary interest.
We understand why the right hon. Lady the Minister for Overseas Development has not been here today, and we accept that the Under-Secretary of State has done his best.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have not finished yet.

Mr. Foulkes: He still has more to do and we hope that it may be a little better. It would be an understatement to say that we were disappointed with his inability to answer any of the earlier interventions, and we hope that they will be answered in his reply.
When the Opposition have put up a member of the Shadow Cabinet, as we also did in the previous debate, we consider it disgraceful that the Government have treated such an important debate in such a shabby way. It is unfortunate that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has not treated the debate with the seriousness that the subject deserves.
As many hon. Members have said tonight, the situation in sub-Saharan Africa might well be termed a life-or-death fight for food. The latest accounts show that the lives of 27 million people are at risk from starvation, and not 20 million as the Government said—it is ironic that the Opposition can get more up-to-date

information about the situation than the Government. More than 4 million tonnes of food are needed, as well as a huge amount of transport and the logistics necessary to distribute it effectively.
By any standards, the situation is daunting and tragic, and it fully deserves the label, so over-used in another context, of a major international crisis. I respect the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, but I would point out to him that it is not merely a minority of Opposition Members who voted in a particular way on the Gulf, who will rightly raise that comparison. It is all hon. Members who genuinely think that the sense of priorities is unfortunate when we compare that effort with that put into the Gulf. I am not deriding or condemning that effort, but the right hon. Member himself contrasted it with the effort expended on the problem that we are discussing.
As many hon. Members have pointed out, the greatest difficulty faced by the emergency relief operation could be described as the competition for attention—the battle to rouse Government and public to act, in the shadow of events in the middle east. All the words that have been spoken on so many occasions about the importance of international co-operation and the need for collective action by countries must have some relevance outside the theatre of war.
As many hon. Members have pointed out—not least the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) in his rather controversial speech—the United Kingdom is not solely responsible for feeding the 27 million who currently face starvation in sub-Saharan Africa. My hon. Friends and I believe, however, that we have a responsibility to take the lead in the international effort—to increase awareness in the European Community, the Commonwealth and the other forums in which we play such an important part. It is especially important to persuade the Japanese and the Americans to recognise their responsibility.
So far, the international response to this appalling situation has been inadequate. Much as we welcome yesterday's announcement of extra money for Ethiopia, the British Government's response has also been inadequate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West so eloquently said.
On 17 December, the Minister for Overseas Development told the House, referring to 1985:
We shall certainly at least match what we did that year." —[Official Report, 17 December 1990; Vol. 183, c. 291.]
That would have Been £36 million, not the £20 million that has already been committed, as I think the hon. Member for Broxtowe would accept. Our fair share, however, is even more: our resources represent about 6 per cent. of the gross national product of donor countries, so we could reasonably be expected to provide 6 per cent. of the amount that is needed, which would be £60 million. Whatever the criterion, we are failing to make the contribution that we should be making to meet the minimum requirements.
The suspicion remains that the money that our Government are prepared to give to help to avoid millions of deaths denotes not the size of the problem but the size of the public outcry in this country. As I have said, it has been difficult to attract very much media attention to this huge tragedy, for several reasons.
The main problem, as many hon. Members have pointed out, is the current obsession with events in the Gulf; but, as the hon. Member for Broxtowe said, another


is what might be described as compassion or donor fatigue—the feeling that, despite the effort and concern that have been expended in the past, nothing can be done to prevent famine from recurring in Africa. That is a great problem in an area where the concern and commitment of the public are crucial to the saving of lives; not just through direct action in the form of donations to voluntary organisations, but—even more important, in the Opposition's view—through galvanising Governments, especially the present Government, into action.
Although we must, honestly and forcefully, attempt to address the long-term causes of these man-made disasters, our top priority should be the provision of the emergency assistance that is so urgently and immediately required. We must not allow people to die of international neglect while we indulge—as we have done occasionally, even tonight—in a gloomy, pessimistic debate about the slim hope of our being able to deal with the long-term position.
As the right hon. Member for Aylesbury so vividly reminded us, we gave generously when, six years ago, we were shocked into compassion by the terrible scenes on television. Reports are now less prominent, but the stark fact is that this is the most serious famine ever in the horn of Africa, and more people are now dependent on food aid to survive than in 1984–85.
The response of donors so far has been too little and it may be too late. The British aid budget is not adequate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley rightly said, no genuine new money has been found. The already overstretched budget has been juggled, and money has been taken from contingency funds. If we take the money that is needed this year from next year's budget, then next year we shall be into the following year's budget, and where will that end? We must find additional resources. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley said, if extra money can be found for the Gulf, it should and must be found for this emergency.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: As the hon. Gentleman cheered when I intervened, perhaps rashly, on my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), does he agree that this issue was got going by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development raising it in the House on 17 December, long in advance of the Opposition choosing to use half a Supply day? Does he further agree that it would have been better if the Opposition had tabled a motion which the House could vote for, rather than one which forces a Division? It saddens many supporters of both parties outside, who take this issue seriously, to see party politics being brought in by the terms of the motion.

Mr. Foulkes: I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are having the debate because of the Opposition. I respect the Minister for Overseas Development. As my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West said, she has done her best within the constraints of being part of a Conservative Government, but that was the first statement that she has made to the House in 18 months. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley has repeatedly asked for statements, and many have been made on other issues.

Sir Timothy Raison: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's kind words. Is not the problem, particularly in the Sudan and probably Somalia, the question how, even if an unlimited amount of money were made available by the Treasury, it would be spent effectively in those countries?

Mr. Foulkes: I was hoping to go into more detail on the Sudan. I do not want to take up too much time, because the Minister was unable to answer any questions in opening the debate, so he must have at least 15 minutes to answer them in reply.
The theme of the debate has been that famine is preventable. It is a symptom of a badly run state, not an act of God. Long-term analysis must include the connection between famine and repression and conflict. As long as repression and conflict continue, there will not be an effective solution to the problems in Africa. Guerrilla wars, by their very nature, involve attacks on a country's civilian population to try to erode popular support and practical support, which means food for the rebels.
As the right hon. Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce) so rightly said, we must recognise that the lack of democracy and of a free flow of information are key factors, because without them there is no pressure on Governments to deal with the problems that cause famine. That was said eloquently, sensibly and sympathetically by the right hon. Member, in contrast to the arrogant and insensitive way in which it was put by the hon. Member for Gravesham. I found the intervention in his speech by the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) most refreshing. If more people had accepted the spirit of that intervention, we would have had more effective contributions from both sides of the House.
At its worst, what I have described results in the current position in Sudan where the Government repress even the truth about the nature of the impending disaster. In the longer term, we must address all those issues. Political change is necessary before economic reform can be effective.
The three points made by the right hon. Member for Shoreham are worth repeating. There should be economic and political reform to enable the sub-Saharan African economies to grow to the necessary level. Secondly, conflict should be eliminated and there should be an increase in regional co-operation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central said, the United Nations must now have a more important and pivotal role to play in helping to end some of those conflicts. Finally, there should be meaningful debt relief and a real increase in development aid for donor countries.
While we are dealing with the immediate problem of famine, we must also consider a long-term solution around a political and financial negotiating table. That is the challenge for the international powers, but Britain must play a very important part.
Today we are talking about the problems of famine. We face a disaster that requires us to be less political. Emergency food relief enables people to survive. If that assists Governments whom we do not support politically, we must accept that, and I hope that the hon. Member for Gravesham will accept it as well. It is not just a matter of priorities, but of common humanity. The people need the food, not the Governments.
If only a fraction of the effort, determination and the money was devoted to solving this problem that has been devoted to mobilising the troops in the Gulf, we would have a chance of ensuring that famine does not in future stop the people of Africa.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The issue of famine in sub-Saharan Africa has raised the gravest possible concerns on both sides of the House. As the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, (Mr. Foulkes) said, the debate has also revealed the great experience and personal knowledge of the subject that many hon. Members possess. In particular, I am aware of that experience among my colleagues. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) are both experts in the subject. My right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce) has had many years experience of the Sudan.
I can take the gibes from the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, who suggested that I was not as expert in the subject as I should be. I take those gibes in good heart and I am friendly with the hon. Gentleman on other occasions. However, it has been a challenge for me and interesting to learn about the subject and become more identified with it than I was 24 hours ago.
I want to isolate two aspects of the debate that are of general interest and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe referred. The terrible crises that we have discussed are continuing problems. We are not at the end of them, and any comparison with the amount of money that has been made available now with what was made available in 1984–85 must be seen in the context of what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has said she will be prepared, without naming figures, to provide as those tragic situations develop.
Secondly, the Government believe that we have a generous aid programme which recognises a great deal of need in the world and which we feel can be justified and sustained in argument. However, we also recognise that we cannot provide for all that on our own. Some hon. Members gave the impression that Britain should reasonably be expected to be the prime mover in many of these tragic situations which manifestly, as the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) said, is not a reasonable aspiration.
No one can say that we have been mean or ungenerous or have failed to recognise the problems of the Sudan, Ethiopia and the other three countries that have been mentioned. Since 1 January 1989, we have given £107 million to those countries. The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) touched on that point and suggested that the ODA was a cul-de-sac for Ministers and officials alike. I hope that I can reassure him that that is not the way in which the officials and the ODA view their responsibilities; nor do I, and nor does my right hon. Friend the Minister. If I am ever privileged to hold that portfolio, I certainly shall not view it in that light.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Lest my remarks be misunderstood, I have nothing but the highest regard for those officials. I just think that they should be asked to pursue better policies.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: They will be grateful for that.
The hon. Gentleman asked why the per capita rate for Angola, the Sudan and Ethiopia are so low. I shall have to move quickly if I am to answer all the questions on which I have briefed myself. I hope that hon. Members will understand. Development assistance is not allocated on the basis of per capita calculations. On the face of it, that

must be a reasonable proposition. We give aid where we can and where it can be used effectively to promote economic growth, reduce poverty and promote good government. It is not wise to view aid in terms of per capita provision.
Opposition Members and my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) placed great emphasis on the fact that, in every way possible and as vociferously as possible, we must continue to press other countries to play their part. We shall press our European Community colleagues to maintain their participation as major players in relief and development work in the region. On her return, my right hon. Friend will report on her visit to Ethiopia and urge our bilateral colleagues in Europe and elsewhere to make generous provision.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister giving a commitment that there will be a statement from the right hon. Lady on her return?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am not in a position to give a commitment, but she will certainly see the Hansard record.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I must make progress. In fairness to the House, I have several questions to answer.
The hon. Members for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) referred to Ethiopia and the sums that were announced yesterday. It was clear from what I said that £3·75 million of the £8·75 million is in this financial year. I said that the further £5 million was in the programme after 1 April next year. I therefore think that that point is clear. There is money in this financial year as well as the next.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) raised several points. She asked whether aid programme money has run out. The aid programme is managed flexibly. My right hon. Friend has assured the House that she will respond appropriately to needs. She has the ability to do so. The £5 million that was announced for food aid after 1 April next year, to which I have just referred in relation to Ethiopia, was deliberately announced as early as possible to enable relief agencies to plan for their own work and to give the World Food Programme an early indication of our firm commitment to provide food throughout 1991 as it is needed.
The hon. Lady referred also to the food pipeline in Sudan and Ethiopia. Of course, food is not the only thing that Ethiopia needs. The £2 million that has been announced will be available for non-food items such as trucks. We have also provided food aid for Sudan. As the hon. Lady knows, no condition is attached to food aid in the case of Sudan or any other country. In November 1990, 10,400 tonnes of food were pledged for Kordofan. A total of 5,000 tonnes have already arrived, and £1·3 million of the £2·5 million pledged in December by my right hon. Friend is allocated to food aid. We are discussing with the non-governmental organisations what use that should be put to. The Government of Sudan have made it clear that they do not want the NGOs to have a role in food provision. We are trying to resolve that problem, but the Sudanese Government may not let the NGOs do what they want to do and what we want to pay for. That is a major problem.
Of the £2·5 million announced in December, £1·2 million has been provided for trucks and logistical help in the delivery of food. That is a matter to which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) referred.
In reply to a point raised by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), I shall outline the difference between 1984–85 and 1990–91. In the earlier years we provided bilateral food aid and non-food emergency aid of £57 million—at prices prevailing then—over two years. Last year, we provided £30 million of equivalent aid to Ethiopia and Sudan. So far this year we have provided nearly £9 million. In all, we have provided nearly £40 million in 13 months, with 11 months still to go. As I have said, this is a continuing situation, and that is the important feature that must be well understood.
I do not have sufficient time to answer all the questions that were put to me but I should like to answer the question which was put by the right hon., Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir David Steel). It was reported from Addis Ababa yesterday that the World Food Programme took delivery of 4,800 tonnes of diesel on 21 January—enough to keep all the trucks on the southern line supplied for about three months. Another 1,000 tonnes is being bought in Djibouti for operations elsewhere in Ethiopia.
I shall shortly have to bring my remarks to a close. What is important, in the context of the problems of war, is to look to the time when peace is not beyond the horizon. The recurrent droughts affecting the horn of Africa and elsewhere are the prime cause of famine, but the effects are worsened by overgrazing, poor agricultural techniques and misguided economic policies particularly in the agricultural sector. These are problems which must be tackled in the longer term. They are major concerns in our aid programme, and we are helping with them under our technical co-operation programme.
There are signs of progress. For example, in Ethiopia the Government are moving towards more liberal, market-oriented policies, particularly in the agricultural sector. But we must continue to strive for progress and encourage others to follow our lead.
Finally we must not forget the British public. Over the years, they have given magnificently to help avert the worst effects of disasters in Africa and elsewhere in the world. I believe that they will appreciate the Government's prompt and effective response to the current food crisis facing a number of countries in Africa. The public will see our record on this for what it is. The actions of a Government committed to respond speedily and effectively.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 264.

Division No. 53]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bellotti, David


Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Allen, Graham
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)


Alton, David
Benton, Joseph


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bermingham, Gerald


Armstrong, Hilary
Bidwell, Sydney


Ashton, Joe
Blair, Tony


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Blunkett, David


Barron, Kevin
Boateng, Paul


Battle, John
Boyes, Roland


Beckett, Margaret
Bradley, Keith


Beith, A. J.
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Bell, Stuart
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)





Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Leighton, Ron


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Lewis, Terry


Buckley, George J.
Litherland, Robert


Caborn, Richard
Livingstone, Ken


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Livsey, Richard


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Canavan, Dennis
Loyden, Eddie


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
McAllion, John


Clelland, David
McAvoy, Thomas


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McCartney, Ian


Cohen, Harry
Macdonald, Calum A.


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
McFall, John


Corbett, Robin
McGrady, Eddie


Corbyn, Jeremy
McKelvey, William


Cousins, Jim
McLeish, Henry


Crowther, Stan
McMaster, Gordon


Cryer, Bob
McNamara, Kevin


Cummings, John
McWilliam, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Madden, Max


Cunningham, Dr John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dalyell, Tam
Marek, Dr John


Darling, Alistair
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Dewar, Donald
Martlew, Eric


Dixon, Don
Maxton, John


Doran, Frank
Meacher, Michael


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Meale, Alan


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Michael, Alun


Eadie, Alexander
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Eastham, Ken
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Morgan, Rhodri


Faulds, Andrew
Morley, Elliot


Fearn, Ronald
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Mullin, Chris


Fisher, Mark
Murphy, Paul


Flynn, Paul
Nellist, Dave


Foster, Derek
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Foulkes, George
O'Brien, William


Fraser, John
O'Hara, Edward


Fyfe, Maria
O'Neill, Martin


Galloway, George
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Patchett, Terry


George, Bruce
Pendry, Tom


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Pike, Peter L.


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Prescott, John


Gordon, Mildred
Primarolo, Dawn


Graham, Thomas
Quin, Ms Joyce


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Radice, Giles


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Randall, Stuart


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Redmond, Martin


Grocott, Bruce
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Haynes, Frank
Reid, Dr John


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Richardson, Jo


Henderson, Doug
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hinchliffe, David
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Rogers, Allan


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Rooker, Jeff


Home Robertson, John
Rooney, Terence


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Howells, Geraint
Rowlands, Ted


Hoyle, Doug
Ruddock, Joan


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Salmond, Alex


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Sheerman, Barry


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Illsley, Eric
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Ingram, Adam
Short, Clare


Janner, Greville
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Kirkwood, Archy
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Lamond, James
Snape, Peter






Soley, Clive
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Spearing, Nigel
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Steinberg, Gerry
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Stott, Roger
Wilson, Brian


Strang, Gavin
Winnick, David


Straw, Jack
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Worthington, Tony


Turner, Dennis
Wray, Jimmy


Vaz, Keith



Walley, Joan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Warden, Gareth (Gower)
Mr. Allen McKay and


Wareing, Robert N.
Mr. Martyn Jones.


Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)



NOES


Adley, Robert
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Aitken, Jonathan
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Alexander, Richard
Day, Stephen


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Devlin, Tim


Amos, Alan
Dicks, Terry


Arbuthnot, James
Dorrell, Stephen


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Dover, Den


Ashby, David
Durant, Sir Anthony


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Dykes, Hugh


Baldry, Tony
Eggar, Tim


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Emery, Sir Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Evennett, David


Beggs, Roy
Fallon, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Favell, Tony


Bendall, Vivian
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fookes, Dame Janet


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Forth, Eric


Body, Sir Richard
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fox, Sir Marcus


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Franks, Cecil


Boswell, Tim
Freeman, Roger


Bottomley, Peter
French, Douglas


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fry, Peter


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gale, Roger


Bowis, John
Gardiner, Sir George


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gill, Christopher


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Brazier, Julian
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Gregory, Conal


Budgen, Nicholas
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Burns, Simon
Grist, Ian


Burt, Alistair
Ground, Patrick


Butler, Chris
Grylls, Michael


Butterfill, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hague, William


Carrington, Matthew
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Carttiss, Michael
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hampson, Dr Keith


Chapman, Sydney
Hanley, Jeremy


Chope, Christopher
Hannam, John


Churchill, Mr
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Harris, David


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Haselhurst, Alan


Colvin, Michael
Hawkins, Christopher


Conway, Derek
Hayes, Jerry


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hayward, Robert


Cope, Rt Hon John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cormack, Patrick
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Couchman, James
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Cran, James
Hill, James


Critchley, Julian
Hind, Kenneth


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)





Hordern, Sir Peter
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Rost, Peter


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hunter, Andrew
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Irvine, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Jack, Michael
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Janman, Tim
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Shersby, Michael


Kilfedder, James
Skeet, Sir Trevor


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Knapman, Roger
Speller, Tony


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Knowles, Michael
Squire, Robin


Knox, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Latham, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Lawrence, Ivan
Stern, Michael


Lee, John (Pendle)
Stevens, Lewis


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Lilley, Peter
Sumberg, David


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Summerson, Hugo


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Temple-Morris, Peter


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Thorne, Neil


Madel, David
Thurnham, Peter


Maginnis, Ken
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Malins, Humfrey
Tracey, Richard


Mans, Keith
Trimble, David


Maples, John
Trippier, David


Marland, Paul
Twinn, Dr Ian


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Maude, Hon Francis
Viggers, Peter


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Walden, George


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Miscampbell, Norman
Waller, Gary


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Warren, Kenneth


Monro, Sir Hector
Watts, John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Wells, Bowen


Moore, Rt Hon John
Whitney, Ray


Morrison, Sir Charles
Widdecombe, Ann


Moss, Malcolm
Wiggin, Jerry


Nelson, Anthony
Wilkinson, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Wilshire, David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Norris, Steve
Winterton, Nicholas


Page, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Patnick, Irvine
Wood, Timothy


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Yeo, Tim


Rhodes James, Robert
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Riddick, Graham
Younger, Rt Hon George


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas



Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Tellers for the Noes:


Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Roe, Mrs Marion
Mr. Tom Sackville.

Question accordingly negatived.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the speed and effectiveness with which Her Majesty's Government has responded to the threat of famine in Sub-Saharan Africa through the provision of food and emergency aid; and endorses its diplomatic action to bring an end to the armed conflicts which have contributed to food shortages.

Social Services (Northern Ireland)

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the Northern Ireland orders.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I beg to move—

Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. There are two orders on the Order Paper this evening which relate to Northern Ireland, one of which is small and merely makes consequential changes and the other relates to a major issue for Northern Ireland health and social services. We wish to take them together over a three-hour period. I must protest in the strongest terms, if the Government decide to carry on the business giving us only an hour and a half on a subject which should properly be contained in a Bill, so that Northern Ireland Members can have a chance to table amendments and discuss the matter properly. Is there any way in which you can extend the business of this House for three hours, Mr. Speaker so that the two orders can be taken together rather than each taken separately for one and a half hours?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I have no authority to do that. I understand that the Minister was intending to propose that the orders be taken together. If the House does not wish that to happen, they must be taken separately. I remind the House that an hour and a half would be given to each order. If such matters could be sorted out through the usual channels before we got to the debate, it would be much easier.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to delay proceedings, but as the second order, granted, is rather narrow, but is consequential upon the major order, would it not be possible to refer to some of the contents of the major order because of the consequential amendments thereto?

Mr. Speaker: The second order is confined to a narrow matter. It is up to the House to decide. Perhaps the Minister should propose that the orders be taken together, and then I shall consider the feeling of the House.

Mr. Hanley: rose—

Mr. William Ross: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the debate will last for one hour and a half only, and since the Minister knows all about the order arid it is evident to the rest of the House exactly what has been done, can we have an assurance from the Minister that he will restrict his comments to five minutes so that those hon. Members representing Northern Ireland have more time to state their case?

Mr. Speaker: That is not within my power either. We are now taking time from the one and a half hours available. The more points of order we have, the less time there will be for the debate. The clocks have started.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate what you have said, but you will remember that on Thursday I asked the Leader of the House to make arrangements so that the debate was not curtailed to an hour and a half. We are


about to debate a major piece of legislation and it is scandalous that the Government, knowing that the second order is consequential and has little in it, did not consent to my request. The reason given for that was that the Government believed the debate would not last for three hours. They should put that to the test as they will discover that there is enough in the first order for the debate to last right through a parliamentary Session and beyond.

Mr. Hanley: I beg to move,
That the draft Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 22nd January, be approved.
It might be for the convenience of the House if the Northern Ireland consequential amendments order, a draft of which was laid before the House on 22 January and which has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, is dealt with at the same time.

Mr. Speaker: Is that for the convenience of the House?

Hon. Members: Aye.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does this mean that the House will not divide in an hour and a half?

Mr. Speaker: If the House wants to divide, it will divide. I sense the mood of the House that it is not for its convenience that the orders be taken together. [HON. MEMBERS: "Aye."] Order. The Chair will need the unanimous consent of the House for the orders to be taken together, and I sense that that is not forthcoming.

Mr. Hanley: It seems that it is not for the convenience of the House for the orders to be taken together and, therefore, I shall speak about the order that comes first, the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order. I assure right hon. and hon. Members that I shall deal with the matter as briefly as the important issue allows.
This is an important issue and I recognise the concern that has been expressed. However, I am sure that hon. Members will recognise that this important issue has been dealt with after considerable consultation. We have had consultations with at least two hon. Members and some 17 district councils. The matter has been carefully considered and, following consultation with certain hon. Members, changes were made to the order. I therefore believe that democracy has been served.
The order implements the policies that were described in the White Paper "Working for Patients" and in the Northern Ireland policy paper on community care "People First." In broad terms, the order does for Northern Ireland what the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 has achieved for the rest of the United Kingdom. As such, it is the most significant piece of legislation involving health and personal social services in the Province since 1972. Therefore, I readily accept the importance of the order.
Although the order makes a number of important changes, its main purpose is to build upon the strengths of the existing system and to give the highly trained and dedicated people working in the services greater freedom to use their skills to the benefit of patients and clients. It

will do this by introducing a new flexibility into the system and by delegating responsibility as much as possible to those directly involved in providing care.
At the heart of the order are the provisions which will allow the Department to redefine the responsibility of health and social services boards. This power will be used to direct that the primary functions of boards should include providing directly, or through contracts, services for their resident populations. This change is central to the Government's reforms and will allow the development of a system of contracting through which boards as commissioners of services will secure them from a range of providers. In future, the primary responsibility of boards will be to identify and to make arrangements through contracts to secure access to a comprehensive range of good quality, value for money services which will best meet the needs of their resident populations.
To facilitate all this, the order makes provision for health and social services contracts. HSS contracts will be analogous to NHS contracts in Great Britain. They will enable boards and other health and social services bodies to make arrangements with each other for the provision of services to agreed standards in return for funding. They will allow much greater flexibility in the provision of services and they will remove one of the major problems in the present system.
At present, a hospital that improves efficiency and effectiveness and attracts more patients can find itself in financial difficulty because budgets have been set on an historic basis; in other words, they become almost too popular. In future, money will follow patients and successful hospitals will be resourced according to the work that they actually do—that seems very much more fair to me.
It must be stressed that the new HSS contracts will not be enforceable by the courts and they will not be the subject of litigation. That may puzzle some hon. Members, but it is because they are internal arrangements. Nevertheless, the contracts will be binding on the parties, which will have recourse to my Department for arbitration.
The order also provides for the reconstruction of the health and social services boards themselves. It will allow the Department to appoint smaller, management-oriented boards comprising an equal number of executive and non-executive members and a non-executive chairman. At present, the boards, as most people would agree, are unwieldy bodies comprising up to and more than 30 members. In future, therefore, there will be no more than 12 members plus the non-executive chairman. Boards' membership will reflect the skill and experience required for the efficient and effective planning and delivery of health and personal social services.
In the case of the Eastern board, the largest, one of the non-executive members will be drawn from the Queen's university medical school. There will no longer be places on the boards specifically for district council nominees or for representatives of professions and trades unions. It is felt that because members will no longer be tempted to represent narrow sectional interests, boards might be better placed to provide the strong, strategic leadership needed to plan for and obtain the optimum range of services for their local population.
I am conscious that the new, smaller health and social services boards will require strong advice from the public and from users of the services. To this end, the order


requires the Department to set up four mirroring health and social services councils, one relating to each board. These will replace the existing structure of 16 district committees.
During consultation on the proposed order, our plans for health and social services councils, I admit, attracted the most attention—and some criticism. After careful consideration of the comments that we received both on the proposed order and during earlier consultation on the same issue, I remain convinced that each board in its role as a commissioner of services will be best served by having a single, coherent source of strong public and consumer advice.
I do not accept that links with local communities will be lost. On the contrary, it will be the duty of individual councils to ensure that they retain strong ties with users and the public. They will be able to do this through publicising their activities and providing the necessary means of communication. They will also be able to set up committees and sub-committees, which can have either a geographical or a subject base and they will be able to co-opt people. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), who considerately came to see me last week to discuss these issues with me. I am grateful to him for that.
I am still not convinced of the need for an advisory tier at regional level. The new health and social services councils will be able to co-operate with one another should they wish, and I hope that they will—and they will be free to form associations if they wish. Because I want our position on this important issue to be beyond doubt, it has even been included in the order, with a specific provision enabling councils to collaborate freely with each other. The initiative for such collaboration must come from the councils themselves. I am committed to ensuring that they have the necessary resources to develop that association—again, if they wish.
I have made another minor amendment to the order. During consultation, we were reminded of the importance of ensuring that the new councils get into their stride as quickly as possible. Therefore, I have decided that, initially at least, the Department should appoint the chairman of each council. However, it is our firm intention that in future, chairmen shall be elected by the members, and this will not be prejudiced by any of the regulations.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: It is all very fine to say, "Live, horse and you'll get grass," or in other words, that one day we can appoint the chairmen of our health and social services councils. Those who have served on the existing boards fear that the standards will have been set at the behest, and under the guidance, of chairmen appointed by the Minister and that the wrong standards will be set by the time we get our hands on the health and social services councils. By then, their whole method of operation will have been guided and they will have been spoilt by ministerial and departmental interference.

Mr. Hanley: I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman could think such a thing of me or the Department. I am sure that he recognises that we take great care in appointing chairmen of many boards throughout the Province. In this case, the chairmen will be acting within fairly rigid guidelines. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will remember that 40 per cent. of the members of the

council will be the result of district councils nominations, 30 per cent. will come from voluntary bodies and a further 30 per cent. will be appointed by the Department from those who are representative of the community. A great deal of guidance is given to the chairmen to ensure that the councils are fully representative. If they are not, the Department will be the first to complain.
The creation of health and social services trusts was another cause for concern. These bodies are a practical expression of the Government's determination to delegate responsibility to those directly involved in the care of patients and clients. I regret that a great deal of nonsense, some of it deliberate, has been talked and written about self-governing hospitals. I hasten to add that it has not come from right hon. and hon. Members. I should like to clarify what these new bodies imply.
First, I must stress that hospitals or facilities that opt for self-governing status will remain firmly within the health and personal social services structure of Northern Ireland. There is no opting out of the NHS. To say so is wrong and wicked.
The freedom that trusts will be given is the freedom to manage and for this reason, they will be outside the direct managment control of health and social services boards. Their freedoms will include an ability to create their own management structure, to determine the terms arid conditions of staff, to borrow money within certain limits and to acquire, own and dispose of assets in a way that ensures that the most effective use is made of them.
But despite their managerial freedom, trusts will not be able to act in ways which might be detrimental to the health service. For example, they will be required to participate fully in medical and other education and research; there will be powers to ensure that they continue to provide services which must be available locally and the Department will be able to step in if there is evidence that the freedoms are being abused. However, in practical terms the main control will be not departmental diktat but the fact that the success of self-governing hospitals will depend on their ability to meet the needs of health boards, which will be the main purchasers of the services that they provide. There will be no virtue in trusts concentrating exclusively on high-cost, high-turnover services, as sonic have suggested. Instead, they will have every incentive to provide the wide range of services that boards require.
Trust status is voluntary, but hospitals and services which aspire to it will need to meet strict criteria. They will need to demonstrate that they have the management ability, professional involvement and financial capacity to do the job. Most importantly, they will need to demonstrate to my satisfaction that genuine benefits and improved quality of service to patients and clients will flow from the trust status.
The order will also enable certain larger general medical practitioners to opt to have their own practice fund. That will allow them to buy services on behalf of their patients, including a defined range of services direct from hospitals. The scheme will be entirely voluntary, and practices that have joined will be free to leave at any time.
The funds will be set at a level that will ensure that patients get the services they require. As an additional safeguard,there will be an upper limit of £5,000 on the cost to a practice fund of hospital treatment for an individual patient in any one year. Any reasonable excess will be met by the health board. Fund-holding general practitioners


should have no good reason, as some have suggested, for keeping certain patients off their lists. If the patients are expensive, the funds will be there.
Complementary to that provision, the order will also enable health and social services boards to give all general medical practices that are not fund-holding practices an indicative prescribing amount. The aim is to make GPs more aware of their prescribing practices and to eliminate wasteful prescribing. The scheme will be administered in such a way as to ensure that patients will always get the drugs they need. Furthermore, indicative amounts themselves will be adjusted where necessary to take account of patients with special needs for medication. Many GPs will welcome the guidance that the indicative scheme will give them.
During consultation on the draft order, considerable media attention was given to the proposed power to restrict the overall number of general medical practitioners in Northern Ireland. That will only bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. There is certainly no intention to use the power to ration GPs as some have suggested.
The power that we intend to take is a reserve power. If at some future date there were to be a disproportionate growth in the number of doctors entering general practice, the Department would be able to make regulations limiting the number of GPs entering the list. In the meantime, boards already exercise control over the distribution of GPs, and that should be sufficient for the foreseeable future. I see no danger in that provision.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister acknowledge that young men and women seeking training positions in Northen Ireland are already restricted in a way which is not the case in England and, as a result, they come to England for training? We also have the problem of graduates from universities in the Republic of Ireland coming in that roundabout way. Therefore, how can the Minister say that the measure is bringing us into line with England?

Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that Northern Ireland has an enviable record in the training of doctors. It has a superb record, of which we can all be proud. But I was referring to the fact that the proposed power to restrict the overall number is exactly the same as that which applies here. There is nothing new about the power. It is merely a reserve power that could be used in future if limits are necessary. At the moment I do not anticipate that the power will be used within the next few years or even longer. The measure merely brings Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom.
Right hon. and hon. Members will agree that community care provisions are among the most important, but the measure contains only a small number to achieve the Government's national policy objectives for developing and improving care services. Since local government reorganisation in 1973, there has been in Northern Ireland a fully integrated structure for the delivery of health and personal social services by the four boards—so there is no need to make new and complicated special arrangements for co-operation, communication and joint planning between the health service and the social services. There is no need either to make a separate

provision to require boards to undertake duties such as assessing care needs or establishing complaints procedures. Unlike local authorities in Great Britain, the four Northern Ireland boards are agents of the Department, which already has wide powers of delegation and direction.
When implemented, the new provisions will significantly enhance the boards' role in developing and funding community care services. Their role will change from being primarily the direct providers of some community care services to that of being the orchestrators of all such services, and they will become the holders of community care budgets. A framework will be created, within which boards will assume direct responsibility for assessing individuals' total health and social care needs, and for strengthening co-operation between themselves and other relevant public, voluntary, and private organisations.
I am conscious of the need to be brief. I will listen carefully to the speeches that follow, and I will limit my winding up speech to as little time as may be necessary to answer the points that are made.
As in the rest of the United Kingdom, the founding principles of the NHS are the firm base for our proposals for the future provision of a comprehensive service, funded primarily from general taxation. The draft order ensures that those guiding principles will remain the bedrock for health and personal social services well into the next century. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I congratulate the Minister on his first proper speech at the Dispatch Box. He commended himself to the House during Question Time some weeks ago, and I feel sure that the House has again been impressed with the manner of his delivery—if not by the content of his speech.
I thought it strange that the Minister spent so long dwelling on the bureaucratic changes that the order will make to health services in the Province, rather than on the realities and on the problems facing the people who want to use those services. There is no doubt that the new structures will remain fundamentally non-democratic. They neither respond to, nor show any responsibility towards, those who work in the health service or who make use of it. I wish that the Minister had spent more time discussing the realities of health provision, instead of reciting Government dogma.
Despite increased expenditure in past years, there is still massive underfunding of the Province's health service, which in recent times has led to large-scale bed and ward closures and to an increasing number of seven-day wards being downgraded to five-day wards. For example, the number of acute beds in Northern Ireland has been reduced to the third worst in the whole of the United Kingdom. In the Eastern health board there is a £8 million maintenance backlog, equivalent to a full year's funding, and the board recently announced further cuts of £2 million as it attempts, on Government orders, to balance its books for this year.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the hospital beds which are now being closed by the Government were created under the former Ulster Unionist Government?

Mr. Jim Marshall: I have no reason to doubt that what the hon. Gentleman says is true, and I therefore verify his assertion.
The Eastern board has recently announced further cuts of £2 million in its attempts to balance its books for this financial year. Finally, there has been no remedial work, including painting, on residential homes in the Province for the past five years. That is the reality of the health service in the Province. What is the Government's response? From what the Minister said one would have expected him to announce that increased financial resources would be made available. However, that was not his response—it was that the health service will be handed over to the marketplace, and thereafter everything will be for the better.

Mr. Hanley: I do not want to take up too much time, or other hon. Members may not be able to take part in the debate. However, yet again, the hon. Gentleman seems to be looking after beds rather than patients. He mentioned the Eastern health board. The latest booklet describing the statistical data for that board shows that in the past nine years admissions have increased from 129,000 to 140,000; the number of out-patients has increased from 701,000 to 748,000; the number of major operations has gone up from 21,000 to 23,000; the total of operations has increased from 116,000 to 138,000; and accident and emergency attendances have risen from 331,000 to 358,000. It seems that patients are more important to the Eastern health board than mere beds.

Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman knows that I said, at the outset, that there had been increases in funding in the health service in the Province. I have not sought to deny that. The only point that I am seeking to make—the Minister may think that I 'am taking too long about it—is that, despite those increased resources, the level of health care and social deprivation in the Province dictate higher levels of funding than the Government are prepared to provide. The specific examples that I have cited represent the reality in the Province. Two of the examples that I quoted refer specifically to problems faced by the Eastern board.
The Government's response to the problem is to introduce the concept of the marketplace, not merely throughout Great Britain, but into the Province. Throughout the various stages of discussions on other Bills, we have made no secret of the fact that we believe that it is nonsense in Great Britain, and will prove to be nonsense in the Province.
While experiments do not always prove beyond peradventure what is likely to happen, I am sure that even the Minister will be aware that the experiment recently carried out by the East Anglian regional health authority showed that disaster, rather than paradise, lies ahead for the health service under this new concept. That will prove to be even more the case in Northern Ireland.
How can one have an internal market in such a small area, and in an area where one group of hospitals—the Royal—has such a dominant role in the provision of health service facilities?
Health care is unlikely to improve as a consequence of the proposed changes, but one small, select group has already benefited: that group of the elect who have responded to recent advertisements for middle and senior management jobs in the new boards. I hesitate to use the

word "inflated", but the salaries are certainly commensurate with the duties that they will perform—duties which have not yet been detailed in job specifications.
Despite the differences that may exist between Government and Opposition over funding, I think that both agree on the need for increased resources in the Province because of the scale of social deprivation there —despite the lack of evidence provided by the 1981 census. While I recognise the inadequacies of that census, given the relatively poor returns in the Province, I think that we all agree that there is more social deprivation there than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Will the Government consider reducing the Jarman index threshold from 30 to 16 to take account of that factor? That would provide only a rough-and-ready yardstick, but it would constitute a recognition of the special problems in the Province.
I mentioned the regionally funded medical services to the Minister before the debate began. The Government have accepted that some specialty services will still need central funding. Let me ask the Minister three specific questions. How many applications for treatment have been received so far? Which specialties are involved? How many applications have, to the Minister's knowledge, been successful?
It will come as no surprise to the House that my party is still opposed to the principle of opting out; but we believe that, if it is to remain, it should be tested by ballot. Two groups should be balloted: the staff of the hospital concerned and the local community. That would, at least, gauge the opinions of both providers and recipients of the service. I am sorry to learn that the Royal group of hospitals has decided not to hold those two ballots. The group has indicated a desire to opt out, but I gather that that feeling is limited to members of the board and, perhaps, the Department headed by the Minister; it is widely known that the majority of the staff, including consultants, are opposed to the principle.
As I said earlier, the position of the Royal group in the Province highlights the problems associated with the internal market system in Northern Ireland. Nearly all the specialties are based there; far from creating the competitive atmosphere described by the Minister, and far from enhancing the availability of choice, the group will probably become a monopoly in many respects, and that is not likely to increase the provision of health care according to the free-market principles enunciated by the Minister.
Evidence from the Province shows that competitive tendering has led to a decline in hospital standards. Contractors estimate that it is possible to clean toilets and wash basins in 0·39 seconds. It is not surprising that standards have declined under that regime. Figures show that any savings that may have accrued from competitive tendering have been outweighed by the increased costs arising form cross-infection. That is typical of the Government's Alice-in-Wonderland attitude to the application of market principles in the health service, but perhaps I am being a little unkind to Alice.
All sections of the community have welcomed the community care provisions not only of the order but of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. It has been said time and again not only by politicians but by interested organisations that unless these changes are accompanied by substantial increases in finance, their aims will be laudable but unattainable. The Government seem reluctant to commit themselves to enhanced funding.
The Minister will agree, despite the point that he made about the close relationship between health and social services, that social services in the Province have always been underfunded. Compared with other regions of the United Kingdom, the Province's social services have been underfunded. Across-the-board cuts in expenditure by health boards have hit social services budgets particularly hard. The Minister will know that that has forced several boards to put the cleaning of health and day centres out to private contract—that could not happen in the remainder of the United Kingdom—with an inevitable decline in standards.
The Minister will be aware that the arm's-length registration and inspection units are supposed to provide a complete registration and inspection service for public, private and voluntary sector homes. Will the Government insist that the criteria that they adopt when they carry out their inspections are published? In England and Wales, the criteria must be published, whereas there is no such need in Northern Ireland and the boards have shown themselves to be extremely reluctant to publish them.
The Minister must realise that the additional powers being conferred on those units will lead to increased expenditure. The local authority in Leicestershire is facing increased expenditure of £150,000 per annum, but no increased finance is being made available there or in the Province to meet that expenditure. Will the Minister undertake to consider the problem and, if possible, ensure that those units are not financed from within the existing budget? If they are, the level of service will be reduced. Will the Minister consider that and give at least some commitment that any additional expenditure involved in carrying out the work of the units will be financed by increased resources rather than from the existing budgets?
It will come as no surprise to right hon. and hon. Members representing constituencies in the Province that the home help service has been a continuing major source of discontent there. Despite Government claims to the contrary, the home help service has been dramatically and drastically reduced in recent years. As far as I can see, the future is even bleaker. The boards' business plans reveal the intentions for the home help service. Following the implementation of this legislation, the directly managed home help service will be available only to the most acute cases.

Mr. Hanley: For clarification, in Northern Ireland at the moment there are 15·8 home helps per thousand of the population, compared with 7·8 in England. That is a remarkable record.

Mr. Marshall: I am grateful for that further information. It just so happens that the Minister's figures do not invalidate my criticism that the home help service has been dramatically and drastically reduced over the past few years. [Interruption.] As a former Whip, I realise that there are time when one needs to discuss things with one's silent colleagues, but, as I listened to the Minister in silence, perhaps he will listen to me for a few seconds in silence.
In response to the Minister's statistics, I will quote the example of an elderly person who was assessed five years ago as needing six hours a week home help provision. That person may now be receiving only one hour a week in spite of their obvious increasing frailty. The Minister's figures are meaningless in terms of the service that is actually provided. I am sure that hon. Members from the Province can verify that the service provided to individuals has declined seriously, particularly over the past five years.
As I said, following the implementation of this legislation, the directly managed home help service will be available only to the most acute cases. The health boards do not specify in their plans what "acute cases" are likely to be. We have no idea how many people are likely to be relieved of the service, nor are we aware of other consequences. If the Minister can give us some idea of what is meant by "most acute cases", that will be helpful.
The remainder of the home help service would be provided by the voluntary sector and, despite the valiant work that it is carrying out in the Province, it cannot pick up the slack released by the public sector.

Mr. William Ross: Surely the Minister's figures are meaningless, because it is not the number of home helps per thousand of the population that matters, but the number of hours that each home help spends with each individual case. The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) was right to state that that time has been greatly reduced.

Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman has reinforced my point. I referred to a specific example in which the number of hours of home help provision per week have been reduced from six to one. Nothing could be clearer. The level of service has decreased quite dramatically over the past five years.
Despite the Minister's remarks, the order is typical of the Government. It fails to address the real health needs of the people of Northern Ireland. It also fails to guarantee that the necessary financial resources will be provided. We oppose the order.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The order gives effect to proposals in the White Paper entitled "Working for Patients" and the Northern Ireland Office's policy paper entitled "People First". It is broadly analogous to the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 of Great Britain. Whereas that Bill received proper legislative scrutiny, the order will have less than one and a half hours' scrutiny, without any line-by-line Committee consideration. It is impossible to do justice to health services in Northern Ireland, not to mention the order itself. Not only does the legislative process suffer, but patients will likewise suffer. People are not being put first. As I told the Minister recently, the consultative process resembles the worst experiences of patients in some surgeries—the doctor is already writing out the prescription before he has consulted or examined the patient. The procedure is an insult to parliamentary democracy. The Minister said that he did not have time to explain the order, but the Government are unwilling to debate it for a longer period.
I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box on this major occasion. He is the third Minister with responsibility for health care provision in Northern Ireland since consultations began on the draft order. Obviously, we have moved beyond a second opinion—we now have a third opinion. In this pseudoscientific and superstitious age, some people hope that the third time might be lucky.
In the 1990 MacDonald Critchley lecture, our former colleague, Enoch Powell, showed how the original National Health Service Act 1946 transferred responsibility for providing health care from a variety of different quarters largely to the hands of Government. There are, of course, two major derogations. The first limited the amount spent on the national health service to that which Parliament financed. The second derogation allowed the nature of the care provided to be vested in the discretion of individual members of the healing profession. That was wise. Few of us would cherish the Minister—delightful though he might be—diagnosing or prescribing, let alone operating on us. Nevertheless, without the Minister providing the hospital, the clinic and the theatre and hiring the staff, there would be little or no opportunity for the medical professions to practise in our system.
There has been and there is a cleavage. The physicians blame the politicians for not providing the tools that are necessary for patients to be given their statutory right to health care. The politicians, of course, to whom the nation has entrusted financial control, would quietly urge physicians to stand for election and put their theories to the test of the ballot. However, we must face an aspect that we suffer in Northern Ireland. Not only in this order but through the absence of a Select Committee, sufficient opportunity is not given to scrutinise the work of the Northern Ireland Office, its various departments and the boards under its control.
Central Government and the Northern Ireland Office cleverly contrived a device to escape from the conflict between politicians and physicians. The Government would transfer responsibility to local concerns and the professions to manage. In effect, there is a reversal of the national health service procedures. This is manifestly heightened by the accelerated development of the

technology and the transfer from centrally-financed institutional care to locally-financed care in the community.
There is also the problem of getting value for money. There has not yet been developed a method whereby efficiency or value for money can truly be fully measured and compared. Within current practice, and under this order, the search will continue. Ministers to whom the responsibility has been given now seek to delegate to others. Most of us—not only those in the health field—have already suffered a ministerial answer that, in effect, says, "That is not my responsibility, but I shall direct your query to …". But responsibility for expenditure and for the implementation of policy should rest in this House.
That is why I question some of the fundamental points in this order. They merely continue, in a refined way, mistakes of the past. The stated aims of the order will probably be accepted by most people in Northern Ireland. The reality is otherwise. "People First", for example, called for the development of domiciliary services, such as home help, day care and respite care services, to enable people to maintain their independence—to live at home wherever possible—and to support those caring for them.
What is the practice? The Minister drew comparisons with the provision that is made in England. Even the Public Accounts Committee said that Northern Ireland indicators, rather than what is done in England, should be the test. But that is a point to which I shall return.

Mr. Maginnis: I think that my hon. Friend will agree that it would be better if the Minister were to compare like with like. In the case of home helps, the need on the mainland is not so great, in that a larger proportion of people who require that type of care live in urban areas where there are drop-in centres and other facilities. By contrast, Northern Ireland is still, by and large, a rural community, where the elderly are isolated.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I agree with my hon. Friend.
The home help service is being cut back throughout Northern Ireland. There is hopelessly inadequate provision for domiciliary physiotherapy, and occupational therapists—scarce enough in hospitals—are as rare in the community as gold dust.
There are few who dispute the desirability of improved management. However, there are many who fear two of its consequences. First, the emphasis will not be on improved health care, except as a token theory, and value for money will predominate, with the emphasis on cost rather than on care. Secondly, local management, including doctors who welcome the challenge, fear that the dead hand of bureaucratic civil servants will impede good management and progressive health provision, while local politicians and trade union representatives are explicitly excluded from the boards.
Contrary to the impression given in the explanatory memorandum, which refers to representatives of the professions, there is a mandated place for someone who holds a post in a university medical or dental school. Was I correct in understanding the Minister as saying that the Eastern board would have one person from Queen's university in that category? Will not similar provision be made for the other boards? Why, in this context, is the Eastern board mentioned specifically? Obviously, and understandably, there is a clear medical, dental, ophthalmic and pharmaceutical input through local


representative committees. Those who are clearly second-class citizens are the members of the nursing profession and people who are supplemental to the practice of medicine. Without them, does anyone believe that the practice of modern medicine could continue?

Mr. Ron Brown: I agree with the main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument. It is evident that what is happening in Northern Ireland is happening elsewhere in the United Kingdom and certainly in Scotland. Does he understand that we have the same feelings about the cuts that he and his people are suffering? If we support him, it is a matter of solidarity, not necessarily political, but solidarity in saying to the Government that the cuts are not justified.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I take the point that the hon. Gentleman makes.
The real loser appears to be the consumer, whether represented by local councillors or concerned citizens who have given so much of their time in the current district committees. "People First" obviously did not mean people's representatives. Although the stated aim of the Government was to remove political influence on boards, clearly any change of Government will mean that it is much easier to impose governmental political direction on an area board. Even under the present system, a chairman can be removed if he does not follow the ministerial mandate or the Department's diktat. John Simpson, the former chairman of the eastern board, is a perfect example of that.
Naturally the Minister will put the best possible gloss on the changes. We have been told that the system of a health committee backing a district health authority works in England, so it should work in Northern Ireland. However, the criticisms levelled at health care provision in England would not convince many that the system has worked. Surely real local interest and commitment would improve it.
The abolition of area boards already reduces the input of local councillors as it makes the new boards managerial. The suggestion that the abolition of 16 local district committees with around 320 members and their replacement by four health and social services councils with 102 members would produce better local involvement makes the mind boggle. Perhaps it says something about the numeracy of the Department and the logical processes behind the legislation.
The crumb of power to set up sub-committees covering geographic or subject interests might seem attractive. However, in an area where unjustified slurs of second-rate citizenship have been made, for the first time the Government have legislated for second-rate committee members. They can be on a sub-committee but they are not given full committee status.
Why should the Minister appoint the chairman of each council? Why should not the committees, as the legislation says, elect their own chairperson? I know that the explanation offered is that in that way the whistle will be blown quickly and the committees will get started. Is not the reason, as has been suggested, to set the pattern of appointment of those who will obey the master's voice?
It should be remembered that each area board and health and social services council deals with, not only

health matters, as in Britain, but with social services, which are the responsibility of local authorities in Britain. My hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) underlined the fact that the population of Northern Ireland is comparatively small and sparse. Local identities are cherished and local people should be involved in this task. Even now I appeal to the Minister for a commitment to think again and to take steps to enlarge the councils so that sub-committees thereof can cover the 16 areas as full members representing consumer interests.
I welcome the gesture already made by increasing the size of the Eastern board's advisory council. That in itself justifies the argument that I have set forth, not on a personal basis but on behalf of my party and the association of district committees. I also welcome the commitment to give councils the explicit right to join together in an association.
In conclusion, I should like to raise some practical matters. Who will be responsible for overseeing the precise delivery mechanisms at local level? If health and social service councils are to be more concerned with the nature, range and quality of the services available, surely the precise mechanisms will impinge on the quality of the services. There will be greater costs in providing access points for the public to reach area boards and health councils. There is also the question of unnecessary waste in the service, as illustrated by the provision of temporary cardiac theatres in the Royal Victoria hospital and the transfer of gynaecological services in wards 23 and 24.
I have drawn the Minister's attention to complaints made at a public meeting in Belfast where I was a speaker. They referred to the poor laundry service, threadbare sheets and a toilet without a seat at a teaching hospital. Where was the management or supervision? Is not help required from a local district committee to press the board and Department for adequate provision? The scope of visitation demanded would be too great for such a small council to undertake without the equivalent of district committees.
I want to put on record what happened when I took to the Department and the board a problem at a residential home. I was told that they had investigated it and that there was no substance in the complaint. In due time the home was closed. I discovered later that one of those giving advice in that area to the Department and the board was a general practitioner who was on a retainer fee of £3,000 a year to service a home. That was the independent advice.
In the Minister's statement to the media announcing the draft order, he said:
Boards will normally be expected to provide members or officers to speak to the council or to answer questions relating to specific issues.
What would be considered abnormal and therefore prevent such representatives going to health and social service councils?
In the light of the travesty of democracy perpetrated on the people of Northern Ireland and the numerous questions which the draft order leaves unanswered, I will be advising my hon. Friends and all right-thinking Members to vote against it.

Mr. James Kilfedder: This is a sad evening for me and a sad day for democracy and for the health services in Northern Ireland. We have before us a draft order which is specialised, complicated and detailed. We have 90 minutes in which to debate it. In opening the debate, the Minister took just over a quarter of that time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] It is a shame. It is a disgrace that the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland have to give their names to a debate which is not a debate and to a consideration of an order which is not a consideration.
The people of Northern Ireland will feel that we are failing them if we do not register our protest at the contempt with which the Government are treating them. Indeed, the Government are treating the representatives of all the political parties with contempt. We are taking part in a charade if we consent to the order. That is why I will join the other hon. Members from Northern Ireland in the No Lobby.
As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), we had an excellent hospital and health service under the old Stormont Government, no matter what criticisms there may have been. I am sure that the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) would agree that the hospital service was in excellent condition then, but that it has deteriorated ever since. The order will lead to further deterioration. Certainly there will be a deterioration in democracy and in the rights of patients. Surely patients must come first.
When we are told by the people of Northern Ireland to put their points of view here, it is right for them to know just how limited we are, because the order, if taken as a Bill, would have had a Second Reading, a Committee stage, a Report stage and a Third Reading—many hours over several weeks with plenty of time given to its consideration. We are being denied that tonight.
All I can do in the time available to me is to relate the order to my constituency, the North Down area. I echo the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall): we have a manifestation of a lack of funding for the services in that area. We need an improvement in services, but the order will not bring that about. For example, Bangor is a town with an ever-growing population. It has a higher percentage of elderly people than most other parts of the Province. Will the Minister investigate the disposal of the board's budget? Less money per head of the population is spent on hospital and social services in Bangor than in any other area in Northern Ireland.
Time after time I have protested in the House about the way in which the Government have whittled away at the hospital services in North Down. Every protest I have made has been met with the answer that enormous sums are being spent in the Eastern board area, which includes Bangor, Holywood, Dundonald, Belfast, the Ards and other parts of County Down. Belfast obtains a large slice of the budget of the Eastern health board. I make no complaint about that. The hospitals in that area deserve sufficient funds to provide an adequate service to the people of Belfast. My complaint is that insufficient funds are provided, for example, for the Bangor hospital or the Ulster hospital, which should be regarded as a North Down hospital, but is not.
I am angry at the way in which the Government are undermining the health service in Northern Ireland. The

board, which is the servant of the Government and the Northern Ireland Office, must take responsibility for implementing the Government's decisions and cuts. The board has undertaken several reorganisations and operational plans, but each one, despite a blaze of publicity about providing a better service, has meant a further attack on the local health service.
It would be wrong to say that everyone suffers. No expense has been spared on the Eastern board's headquarters. Even the carpet was specially woven with the initials of the Eastern health and social services board. Why they had to have their initials on the carpet, I do not know. Certainly, the people of the area would prefer to see the money spent on their hospitals and social services.
Acute beds may be closed in North Down, hospital facilities may be slashed and the Crawfordsburn hospital may be closed, but the bureaucracy of the Eastern health board will ensure that it does not suffer. It would be interesting to see how the salaries of headquarters' staff have climbed over the years. Perhaps the Minister would make a statement on the total salaries paid today to staff at headquarters compared with that 20 years ago and compared with the expenditure on hospital beds in the area.
I have long argued for a new hospital for the North Down area. In view of the Government's attitude in the past few years, I know that it is unrealistic to expect them to provide one, although it is needed. I call on the Government tonight to respect the needs of the people of North Down by renovating and revitalising the Bangor hospital and by providing a casualty department and other medical facilities for this important area with its high-density population.
The board proposed to close the Connor surgical wing at Bangor hospital, which consists of 16 beds, on the excuse that the occupation rate of all the surgical beds in the hospital was low. As a result of the clamour and protest that I made about that proposal, however, the board changed its mind. The chairman stated that the board decided "after careful consideration" that 18 of the 24 beds in the ground floor surgical ward should be temporarily closed. Why was such "careful consideration" not given in the first instance when the board originally decided to close the Connor wing? Even now I do not trust the board when it says that the beds will be closed temporarily.
There is a long waiting list for operations in Northern Ireland. I do not want the Minister to tell me how long the waiting lists are in England—I am not interested in that. It is up to the Members representing the English constituencies to attack the Government on those delays. I represent the people of Northern Ireland and they are right to complain about the long waiting lists. I do not blame the specialists, the consultants or the doctors at the various hospitals. They are doing the best job possible and I should like to put on record that we have among the finest consultants and doctors in our hospitals in Northern Ireland who specialise in, for example, cancer, heart disease and burns. I also pay tribute to our nurses who do an excellent job.
The waiting lists in Northern Ireland are far too long and I do not believe that the order will do anything but lengthen them. Those lists are a disgrace, because no account is given to the pain and suffering or anxiety that is caused to the person awaiting hospital treatment.

Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that each of us from Northern Ireland could have kept this debate going for three hours? We could provide examples of widowers who have come to our advice centres and appealed to us to try to persuade the Minister to make more money available to reduce the long waiting lists for heart surgery in Belfast. They have made that appeal because they have lost wives who may have been on those lists for up to 18 months, but missed the opportunity of an operation. Those men and their families do not want another husband to lose their life-long companion in such circumstances.

Mr. Kilfedder: I agree with my hon. Friend, who rightly speaks with compassion on this matter.
I am aware that other hon. Members want to participate so I shall conclude by mentioning the important issue of home help services. In doing so I am aware that I have not dealt with all the other matters that should be considered.
I agree with the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) that the home-help service has been cut. I know of cases in which, if that service has not been taken away completely, it has been cut to half an hour on one or two days a week. That is disgraceful. It is in the best interests of elderly people for them to stay in their own homes for as long as humanly possible. To do so, however, they need the services of home helps and district nurses. It is wrong that such home help services are no longer provided as they once were.
The order will not help the health services in Northern Ireland and I intend to vote against it.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
When the Minister introduced the order he said that it was the most significant piece of legislation on health and social services since 1972. So, after 29 years, we are reorganising our health and personal social services with a 90-minute debate. I add my voice to that of other hon. Members representing Northern Ireland who have said that that is a total disgrace.
Because of the limit on time, I can only sketch a broad canvas. The order cannot be amended in any respect. It deals mainly with general practitioner services and acute hospital sector services. It makes only passing reference to long-stay hospitals and community health services which care primarily for the mentally ill and handicapped, the elderly and the physically handicapped. Demography proves that these sectors are growing in number and imposing more demands on services. Yet all these aspects find little place in the order.
As with the legislation for England, Scotland and Wales, this order must be seen in its political context—of the dogmatism that subscribes purely to the profit motive and privatisation, in the wrong belief that only those can bring about efficiency and cost-effectiveness. The funding crisis in the national health service has provided the political opportunity to apply these so-called theories to the health services, in spite of the fact that public opinion in poll after poll has shown itself dogmatically opposed to such changes. Even 66 per cent. of taxpayers are prepared to take their money out of their pockets and put it into the public coffers to sustain a better health service.
If the Minister is critical of some of the comments about cuts that he will hear this evening, let him examine the budget of the Eastern health and social services board for the fiscal year 1989–90. He will discover there, dramatically exposed, the consequences of short funding—in respect of home helps and the geriatric and psychiatric divisions, all of which have contracted.
I should like to be more parochial tonight and to discuss the deprived area of Down and its need for a hospital, but I dare not stray because of the limits on our time.
My party certainly does not oppose a review of the health services. Comprehensive and equitable provision of health care, funded from taxation, is an integral part of our political philosophy, and we accept that there is a continuous necessity for any Government to decide what proportion of national resources should be devoted to health. Equally, however, we are concerned that such provision should be responsive to need, and it should deliver high-quality care and be as efficient as possible in the use of the resources allocated to it.
We do not believe that the radical proposals for the so-called "internal health market" will retain equality of access, improve the quality of care or release resources for better distribution. The patient will have less choice of hospital, and some of the proposals raise distinct fears about the long-term future of a comprehensively publicly funded service, as well as short-term fears about the effect of diverting resources away from patient care and towards the reorganisation of management structures and financial procedures.
The order appears to concentrate on devising financial and administrative structures to encourage hospitals and GPs to compete for patients. It fails to identify the most important problems facing the health service in the 1990s, among which are chronic under-funding, the growing number of elderly people, and the persistent inequalities in health and health care as between different levels of income. The order does not deal with the importance of income, education or even housing in the prevention of much ill health.
The problem of unnecessary and expensive prescribing by GPs would be better dealt with by medical audit, education and encouragement than by indicative budgets. The new contract for GPs which provides incentives to have large lists will reduce the quality of care, especially in the socially deprived areas.
We are opposed to budgets for general practitioners, because every decision that a doctor makes on patient care will have two elements—the normal and expected one of clinical diagnosis, and the new one of the financial implications of any treatment the patient might need. That will be damaging to patient-doctor relationships, and will lead to larger practices, longer waiting lists, the doctor not being able to give patients enough attention, further deprivation of the poor, and a lower standard of service to the rural areas.
My party is opposed to self-governing hospitals, which will be responsible only to the Department of Health and Social Services. Such hospitals will make it impossible for regional health boards to plan comprehensive services. These hospitals will have every incentive to concentrate on the highly profitable sectors of care rather than on serving the local community and the chronically sick. The freedom to set their own pay levels, to borrow on the commercial


market and to deal in assets cannot fail to have a deleterious effect on the other board hospitals in the area. We shall end up with a system of two-tier hospitals.
I support the comments of other hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies about the new management advisory structures. I was greatly concerned to see that the order allows for the removal of local elected councillors from the new health boards, which will have no elected representatives. Northern Ireland already has a rather weak system of local government, and this move further erodes local democracy. It is essential to have strong representation from the councils in the area, and they should have adequate resources to monitor the services. The local district health committees, close as they were to the problems, had great difficulties coming to grips with the assessment and interpretation of factors. How much more difficult will it be for the four area boards?
One of the great achievements of the NHS is that it has been a national service, and that essential facilities and therapeutic skills are available to people wherever they live. I am strongly opposed to the ending of the national pay negotiations, which ensured that the doctor, the nurse, the radiologist and the cleaner were paid the same wherever they worked. The introduction of local pay negotiations will inevitably lead to a loss of skilled staff from the peripheral areas and to a worsening of employment conditions for the unskilled who will have to remain. I ask the Minister to note some of the anomalies that will appear as a result of the order.
How is the consumer's choice to be extended when he can choose only his doctor, and not the services that the doctor has contracted for, either in consultancies or in hospitals? How far will competition be allowed to develop, and which units of provision will go out of business? If there is only one hospital in an area, will it retain its monopoly? A new self-governing hospital will have a privileged position on borrowing and staffing. Is that fair competition, as the Minister called it?
Competition seems to be the bedrock of this order. Is there hard information, or will there be in the foreseeable future, on the comparative prices and quality of service delivery? I do not think that there is the equipment to do that now or soon. All that I can see is a huge increase in management costs, rather than improvements in the services to patients. The average 5 per cent. administrative costs that we have will escalate rapidly to the 20 per cent. average in the USA. That will deprive the patients of resources that should be directed to them.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I have been left with four minutes, of which I am told that the Minister would like five so that he can reply to the debate. He will clearly not get his five and I shall have little time to do anything more than protest about the farce that the debate has become.
The Minister need not be in the least bit sad about not being able to reply to the debate because it is he and his Government who are in control of the timetable of the House and they could have given the House adequate time to debate this important issue.
Apart from constitutional matters—this is close to a constitutional matter—there is no more important matter

for the House to discuss. To debate major changes in health and social services in an hour and a half is impossible.
I am happy to congratulate the Minister on his appointment. I have known him for some time and his personality and ability will enable him to make a great contribution to health and social services in Northern Ireland. But he has drawn the short straw tonight in having to bring this kind of legislation to the House in the manner in which he has been asked to do so.
The legislation will in effect hand over complete control of health and social services to non-elected individuals—people who are not accountable to anybody in Northern Ireland. The previous health and social services board had some form of accountability in Northern Ireland to ensure that a number of district councillors were appointed to those boards. Schedule 1 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 specified the number that there should be on the board. Now the Minister's grand reform of health and social services in Northern Ireland will wipe away the elected representatives from the board, ensuring that only the Government's yes men will get to the top of the administration.
To make it worse, the Minister has ensured that 50 per cent. of those who will control health and social services in Northern Ireland will be his employees. If ever there were people who would jump when the Minister says jump, it is those whom he employs. Those who pay wages control loyalty. I rather suspect that the order will push forward health and social services in Northern Ireland by ensuring that there will be no resistance or objection to the way in which those matters are dealt with.
The net effect of the order is bureaucratic incest. The officers of the board are themselves allowed to elect further officers to the board. The order is supposed to be for the good of health and social services in Northern Ireland but it will not contribute to their betterment. It is unhealthy and I suspect that it will result in a bad service to the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Roy Beggs: I am grateful to be called, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that I am the only hon. Member present who attended throughout an earlier debate in the House on health matters. I was not called on that occasion and—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).

The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 107.

Division No. 54]
[11.43 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bottomley, Peter


Amos, Alan
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Arbuthnot, James
Bowis, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Brazier, Julian


Ashby, David
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; CI't's


Baldry, Tony
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Bellingham, Henry
Burns, Simon


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Burt, Alistair


Bevan, David Gilroy
Butterfill, John


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Carrington, Matthew


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Carttiss, Michael






Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Knowles, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Knox, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lawrence, Ivan


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Davis, David (Boothferry)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Day, Stephen
Malins, Humfrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mans, Keith


Dover, Den
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Durant, Sir Anthony
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Dykes, Hugh
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Evennett, David
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Fallon, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Favell, Tony
Norris, Steve


Fishburn, John Dudley
Patnick, Irvine


Fookes, Dame Janet
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Riddick, Graham


Forth, Eric
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Fox, Sir Marcus
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Franks, Cecil
Sackville, Hon Tom


Freeman, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


French, Douglas
Shersby, Michael


Gale, Roger
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Goodlad, Alastair
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Speller, Tony


Gregory, Conal
Steen, Anthony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Stern, Michael


Grist, Ian
Stevens, Lewis


Ground, Patrick
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Grylls, Michael
Summerson, Hugo


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Hague, William
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hanley, Jeremy
Thurnham, Peter


Hannam, John
Tracey, Richard


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Twinn, Dr Ian


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Viggers, Peter


Harris, David
Waller, Gary


Haselhurst, Alan
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Hayes, Jerry
Watts, John


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Wells, Bowen


Hayward, Robert
Wheeler, Sir John


Hind, Kenneth
Widdecombe, Ann


Hordern, Sir Peter
Wilkinson, John


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Hunter, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas


Irvine, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Jack, Michael
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Janman, Tim
Yeo, Tim


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)



King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kirkhope, Timothy
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Knapman, Roger
Mr. Tim Boswell.


NOES


Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)
Armstrong, Hilary


Allen, Graham
Ashton, Joe


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)





Battle, John
McGrady, Eddie


Beggs, Roy
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Benton, Joseph
McMaster, Gordon


Boateng, Paul
McNamara, Kevin


Bradley, Keith
McWilliam, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Maginnis, Ken


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Buckley, George J.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Maxton, John


Canavan, Dennis
Michael, Alun


Clelland, David
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Cousins, Jim
Morgan, Rhodri


Cryer, Bob
Morley, Elliot


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Mullin, Chris


Darling, Alistair
Murphy, Paul


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Nellist, Dave


Dixon, Don
O'Neill, Martin


Doran, Frank
Patchett, Terry


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Pendry, Tom


Eastham, Ken
Pike, Peter L.


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Prescott, John


Flynn, Paul
Primarolo, Dawn


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Foster, Derek
Reid, Dr John


Fyfe, Maria
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


George, Bruce
Rowlands, Ted


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Ruddock, Joan


Golding, Mrs Llin
Skinner, Dennis


Gordon, Mildred
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Graham, Thomas
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Soley, Clive


Haynes, Frank
Spearing, Nigel


Home Robertson, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Stott, Roger


Illsley, Eric
Strang, Gavin


Ingram, Adam
Turner, Dennis


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Vaz, Keith


Kilfedder, James
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Kirkwood, Archy
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Lamond, James
Wareing, Robert N.


Leadbitter, Ted
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Leighton, Ron
Wilson, Brian


Lewis, Terry
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Wray, Jimmy


Lofthouse, Geoffrey



Loyden, Eddie
Tellers for the Noes:


McAllion, John
Mr. David Trimble and


McAvoy, Thomas
Mr. William Ross.


McFall, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved
That the draft Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 22nd January, be approved.

Northern Ireland Social Services (Consequential Provisions)

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): We now come to motion 3—

Mr. Donald Thompson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would it not be more sensible to have the vote now, and then an hour and a half of debate after that?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that we will do it in the usual manner.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I beg to move,
That the draft Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 22nd January, be approved.
The order has, in fact, already been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
As a result of the changes proposed in the draft Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, a number of Acts passed by the Westminster Parliament, applying solely to Great Britain or the United Kingdom as a whole, will require amendment. The amendments are purely consequential, and concern—inter alia—extending the remit of the Clinical Standards Advisory Group to Northern Ireland, widening the scope of the NHS contract provisions to include additional Northern Ireland bodies, certain tax matters and parliamentary disqualification. They are contained in a separate Order in Council, the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order—

Mr. William Ross: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Hanley: Of course I will give way.

Mr. Ross: This is a dialogue, not a monologue.
The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to article 3, which amends the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. Surely this is a most unusual way in which to introduce disqualification for membership of the House. Is there not a more reasonable way, involving a list of disqualifications which is published periodically, with the list being amended? Then everyone would know that a matter of real constitutional importance was at issue. It is disgraceful to bury it in a small order like this.

Mr. Hanley: I cannot agree that this is a disgraceful way in which to proceed. The measure is merely a consequential amendment and, as I have said, has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. There is nothing secret about it; the item has been published for some time, and the changes will appear in due course in the list to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
It only remains to say that, being purely consequential, the order will not take up a great deal of time.

Mr. Bob Cryer: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Apparently the Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Roger Stott: Her Majesty's Opposition will waive the right to speak this evening, in order to allow hon. Members from the Province to do so.

Mr. Roy Beggs: I, too, wish to be generous. I welcome the Minister to his post. As a consequence of the time restriction on the earlier debate and the limitation on the debate of this order, I shall confine my remarks to a single issue in the hope that it will be possible to establish whether the Secretary of State, acting jointly with the Northern health and social services board, can remedy the dissatisfaction of my constituents. The board proposes to close acute facilities at my hospital in Lame, to provide acute services for my constituents in an area hospital in Antrim. It will take much hard work by all those concerned, acting jointly, to satisfy my constituents.
Phase one of the new Antrim hospital will be completed in 1993, at a cost of £40 million. Funding may never be found for phase two, as Coleraine has bid for a new hospital on a green-field site. Phase two is unnecessary as it would result in avoidable inequality of provision. There has been widespread opposition to the board's proposals for the Moyle but widespread support for the retention and development of acute services at the Moyle hospital in Larne.
That cross-community support is representative of the views of all Church groups, industry, schools, clubs, organisations, GPs in the catchment area and Lame borough council. Fifteen thousand people petitioned the council, and 2,500 letters have been sent to the Department. This is an example of the community acting jointly to protect their own interests. It is necessary, therefore, that those in the Department, the Minister and the board act jointly to protect those interests.
The Moyle hospital report shows clearly that my constituents in east Antrim are being treated differently from others in Northern Ireland and in the Northern health board area and are being discriminated against. The policy being pursued by the Northern health and social services board—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I realise that he was not able to speak in the previous debate, but I am finding it difficult to relate his speech to the consequential amendments. Perhaps he will draw my attention to the part of the consequential amendments to which he is addressing his remarks.

Mr. Beggs: I refer you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to article 7(5) on the need for those involved to act jointly and to article 7(2) on the functions of the boards, which cover the board's policy on Moyle hospital in my constituency.
The policy being pursued does not coincide with the policy of the Government, of the former Prime Minister or of the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. "Strategy for the Development of Health and Personal Social Services in Northern Ireland"—HMSO 1975—made a clear declaration
To promote, having regard as appropriate to consideration of parity with Great Britain the health and social welfare


of Northern Ireland. Provided on a co-ordinated and accessible basis and delivered in a manner that is acceptable to individual and communities.
The right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), when Prime Minister, advised:
Do not take as much to the centre as you can, but take as much to the periphery as you can.
We in Larne are right on the periphery. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, said:
It is my abiding aim that all sections of the community in Northern Ireland enjoy equality of opportunity and provision of services.
Many patients in east Antrim are already almost 20 miles away from acute services. It is unreasonable to expect them to travel 36 to 38 miles for acute services at Antrim.
The Moyle hospital services a large coastal area, including the isolated glens of Antrim and Islandmagee. In-patients and out-patients have access to a comprehensive range of services. Approximately 95 per cent. of all patients referred to Moyle hospital are treated there efficiently and effectively.
Statistics produced by the Department of Health and Social Services show a steady increase in activity at the Moyle hospital. There was a 21 per cent. increase in operations carried out in the period 1984 to 1988.
The highest activity level of all hospitals in the Northern health and social services board area is recorded at Moyle hospital in Lame, but the board proposes to close the hospital's acute facilities. I pay tribute to the staff at all levels for the success achieved by Moyle hospital. The present policy must be reappraised independently. Future provision should be determined now and not after the proposed changes have been implemented.
Lord Skelmersdale and the NHSSB provided further evidence of discrimination against the population of east Antrim by giving assurance to an NHSSB member and the chairman of the new Coleraine hospital campaign group that the appraisal team studying acute hospital provision for the Coleraine triangle would have total freedom to assess all hospital needs for that area.
That contrasts sharply with the response to requests from the Moyle action committee that its report, produced with professional and objective advice, would be accepted by the Minister, principal officers at the Department and the NHSSB as an official option appraisal, that it should be considered by an impartial team and not by a partially discredited four-man NHSSB team that was already committed to the Antrim area hospital concept.
It was indicative of how meaningless consultation had become when no request was made for the Touche Ross report which should have been scrutinised alongside the Moyle hospital report. Over £40,000 was spent to produce that credible report and that was paid for largely by voluntary subscriptions and by support from Lame borough council.
Experts will confirm the belief that the NHSSB has used poor planning methodologies and did not seriously consider alternative patterns of provision. The NHSSB's proposals for Moyle hospital are doomed for the following reasons: they are based on out-of-date planning criteria; the patients will choose not to use the new Antrim hospital and will instead travel to the large teaching hospitals in

Belfast; and the Antrim hospital will receive no income from east Antrim when it needs funds and when finance follows patients.
General practitioners in east Antrim have established referral patterns to Moyle hospital in Lame or to Belfast. East Antrim GPs will in future accept patient choice and refer them to Belfast hospitals if Moyle hospital ceases to be an option.
The retention of high-quality local acute services at Lame is justified on the basis of population, remoteness of parts of the coastal area, the importance of local heavy industry, of which there is the greatest concentration outside Belfast, the demand for accident emergency services, the continuing growth of tourism and traffic through Lame harbour and, finally, but by no means least, to meet the wishes of the patients and the medical profession.
The lives and limbs of patients will be put at risk if the present proposals are implemented. Costs to the community and to the NHSSB would be shown to be too high to justify transferring acute services from Moyle to the Antrim hospital if only the board would give the report an impartial appraisal.
Unlike the narrow, blinkered proposals of the NHSSB, the Moyle hospital report has provided alternatives for consideration that will eliminate inequalities and save capital expenditure which would have to be incurred if phase two of Antrim hospital proceeds. By comparison, modest expenditure at Moyle hospital will enable our local hospital to meet the needs of most patients for the foreseeable future and utilise expertise that is already available in Belfast.
The proposals in the report will save public expenditure and, at the same time, protect local services. I seek the support of the House to protect and to develop acute services at Moyle hospital and secure proper provision of hospital services, in keeping with Government policy, for my constituents.
I hope that those brief remarks will encourage an impartial reappraisal and that the Minister will seriously consider ensuring that no final decision is made until there has been an impartial analysis and until, if necessary, the strategic team with responsibility for the report has an opportunity to make further representations to him. I repeat that he should grasp the nettle and face up to his unique opportunity as a newly appointed Minister to provide a more cost-effective, equitable and acceptable acute hospital service to my constituents.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is a very narrow, technical order. I have allowed the remarks of the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) to go rather wide because he was interrupted almost in the middle of his first sentence in the previous debate. I remind the House again that we are discussing whether the amendments are made necessary by the order that has just been pased. Remarks must therefore be directed to that comparatively narrow point.

Mr. Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we entitled to argue that there should be further consequential amendments if we believe that they arise from the order that has already been passed?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That will be in order, as long as it is strictly related to the order now before us.

Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Rather than speak in the debate, I can dispose of the point by raising a point of order. The Minister invoked the fact that the instrument had been before the Joint Select Committee on Statutory Instruments to indicate some sort of endorsement of the order. However, you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Joint Committee can consider only technical matters—for example, whether the order is ultra vires or whether the Minister has made an unusual use of powers. We are not allowed to report to the House on the merits of the order. Therefore, the fact that it has been before the Committee does not imply any endorsement of the merits of the order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is the Chairman of the Committee, for making that point clear.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: I join hon. Members who have expressed concern about the way in which the legislation has been brought before the House—by Order in Council. Those of us who try responsibly to represent the views of our constituents are precluded from doing so by time constraints.
In the previous Order in Council, which we debated for an hour and a half, there are about 21 pieces of Northern Ireland legislation which require consequential amendment and which are listed under schedule 5. We are now debating the consequential effect on other legislation relating to health and personal social services. I do not believe that it is possible in a short period fully to appreciate the consequences of 27 other pieces of legislation. The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, like many others that are listed, demonstrates how the administration of health and social services is dependent on the right blend of bureaucracy and community participation. It is to the relationship with that Act that I draw the attention of the House. I do not believe that we have here a proper blend between the administrators—the bureaucrats—and those who are responsible for ensuring that the health and social services are run for the benefit of the consumer.
Previously, in the area of democracy and public accountability, the health and social services boards at least appeared to have some independence in the role they played. However, as those boards came towards the end of their life, it became more and more obvious that they were merely extensions of the Department of Health and Social Services. In that respect, what we are now faced with presents us with no great change. To meet the requirements enshrined in all these consequential provisions we should have had some properly firmed-up proposals in relation to the health and social services councils. But there are no such proposals. The whole matter of the councils has been treated in the most vague and offhand manner. Having lost our district health committees, where the voice of the consumer was heard, we cannot be assured that we shall have an effective means of making that voice heard in the future. No one—certainly not anyone who has had experience of the health and social service boards—believes that these proposals will adequately achieve that purpose.
Beyond naming the councils and making provision for district council representation, the legislation is vague and lacking in detail. It allows the Department to make of the councils what it will. They are not the voice of the consumer, but rather a shadowy means of representation that, it is safe to say, will be dominated by their chairmen, who will be powerful people appointed by the Minister to direct the energies of the councils as he and the Department wish. Enabling measures of the kind that are enshrined in the order can give the public no confidence that their views will carry any weight in the management process.

Mr. Hanley: The whole point of the new councils is that they should add weight to the process. The fact that three of the councils will have 24 members and that the eastern council will have 30 indicates that a very large number of people from a very wide cross-section of the population will be included. Surely no chairman will have such sway. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, as chairman, would have that sort of power, but I am sure that no other human could achieve it.

Mr. Maginnis: I cannot accept the Minister's assurance. It is obvious that if the health and social services councils were to have a real authority and effect on how the boards operated, they should have been given an authority parallel to the authority vested in Select Committees of the House of Commons. They should have been able to operate as consumer watchdogs and their role and authority should have been clearly defined in the wider context of decision making and management arrangement within the health and social services.

Mr. Peter Robinson: In view of the Minister's intervention, does the hon. Gentleman find it difficult to understand how the Minister could tell the House earlier that it was necessary to reduce the size of the health and social services board because it was unwieldy to have as many as 30 members? I think that I quote the Minister correctly and that Hansard will show that I do. Yet the Minister now tells us that the health and social services councils can be unwieldy and have that number of members. Does not the hon. Gentleman find it strange that the Minister gives power and authority to people who are not elected representatives and puts them on a pedestal above those who are elected representatives? What effect will that have on the body politic in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are not dealing with the previous order. The House has dealt with that. We are dealing with this one, which involves consequential amendments.

Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for reminding me of that, but you will understand our difficulty. We do not have—I am sure that you do not have—all the consequential legislation in front of us. Therefore, we must try to recall the effects that some of the amendments will have. I am trying to deal with the spirit of the legislation, which will be affected by these consequential matters.
I should have thought that health and social services councils ought to reflect the plurality of interests in the provision of services. If professional care staff are to be prohibited from membership, adequate arrangements must be made to permit them to advise health and social services councils of their views about services and their


assessments of service needs and proposed policies. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us how he envisages that professional opinion will be expressed and will manifest itself through the system. There is no point in allowing doctors and nurses to manage the hospitals unless they can influence those who have financial control.

Mr. Hanley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maginnis: I am sure that the Minister will answer me in some detail at the end of the debate. Perhaps I could pose some other questions for him to answer later.
Health and social services councils should be adequately resourced to enable them to conduct in-depth scrutinies of services and general policies as they affect consumer interests. The independent authority and status of the councils is not addressed but should surely be guaranteed in recognition of the council's monitoring and representative roles and in order to secure public confidence.
Should not the health and social services councils have the right to receive appropriate information to allow them to discharge their function and to require the attendance of board officers to provide information? Where is that established either in the original order or in any of the consequential amendments? I have not been able to find it properly detailed anywhere. While the role of the health and social services councils should be to concentrate on matters of general public interest, there should be arrangements for council members to raise individual local or specific concerns with the board or appropriate board officers.
In general, the role of the councils should be seen as equating with that of a parliamentary Select Committee. While the activities of a Select Committee relate to a Government Department, the activities of the health and social services councils would relate to the policies of the boards. The scrutinising powers of the councils should therefore be equivalent to those of a Select Committee. Unless we have an assurance from the Minister that he will take seriously the demise of district committees and ensure that the health and social services councils can effectively —I emphasise "effectively"—replace them, we will have to go back to our constituents and tell them that they have no control as consumers over the services provided.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I note my hon. Friend's argument on the consequential order. Does he accept that if the health and social services councils are given the powers of a Select Committee to deal with boards, there is a greater argument for a Select Committee of the House to scrutinise the Department of Health and Social Services and the Northern Ireland Office?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) will not widen the debate to cover a matter which is not related to the order.

Mr. Maginnis: I have to concur entirely with my hon. Friend. For far too long we have drawn the short straw. Tonight is the saddest example that I have seen in eight years in the House. Here we are, dealing with something which affects every member of the community in Northern Ireland from the moment of birth—

Rev. Martin Smyth: And before it.

Mr. Maginnis: Indeed. From before birth to the moment of death we are dependent on the hospital service. I cannot think of any other service, including education —I came from the education service—in which it is so important to have the confidence of the community and with which the community should feel comfortable and at ease.
The Minister lauded the idea of 30-member councils. Many of us know that the larger a committee, the less effective is its work because it is impossible for every member to play a part. If I recall correctly, my health and social services board, the Southern board, recommended that councils be restricted to 16 or 18 members, and certainly not more than 20. If the Minister had taken that advice, he might have been able to find some way of accommodating the people who selflessly and generously gave of their time in district committees in the past, albeit perhaps not with the same status. Many feel brushed aside and that their services over many years have not been appreciated. It will become increasingly important to have small groups of people closely allied to individual hospitals who can reflect to members of the health and social services councils what happens on a day-to-day basis.
The amending legislation deals with value added tax, income tax and corporation tax. They are all important, yet we have not heard from the Minister why they are important. I doubt whether many people who listen to the debate understand the relevance.
I am greatly disturbed that the individual units of management will be encouraged to raise funding privately. I am talking not about hospital trusts, but about raising funding for a hospital, whether through franchises of shops in the entrance to the hospital or ordinary charitable fund raising. There has been no explanation of how that money will be handled. For the more assiduous and energetic fund-raising team in a particular unit of management, will it mean the withdrawal of resources provided directly from the Department? It might have been more generous if the Minister had thought of some sort of pound-for-pound scheme which would reward industry in this respect. It might have reassured the consumer if he had known that such money would be kept in an account separately from other funds and used to enhance the service rather than to replace money which should rightly come from the Government.
There are many deserving charitable causes and in Northern Ireland the community is noted for its response to charitable appeals. How is the ordinary small but worthy charity to compete with large, well-organised units of health management where professional fund raisers can be employed? We may well diminish the good work that is carried out voluntarily by people who work for the good of the community.
Those thoughts have occurred to me when I have looked at the order. Although it lists consequential amendments, we do not and cannot judge the effect of the changes simply because we have had neither the time nor the information from the Department early enough for us to judge the effect of what we are supposed to accept here tonight for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland.
This is a sad state of affairs. I hope that we are not going to have to continue to legislate in the dark or in semi-darkness, not quite knowing what we have got and not quite knowing where we shall be led.

Rev. Martin Smyth: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall call the hon. Gentleman, but I remind him that he spoke in the previous debate. However, I am sure that he will not cover the ground that was debated in the previous order.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate being called. I recognise that your task, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is as difficult as our own because of the decision of the Government managers not to meet the simple request to have a longer debate on the main order. I have no intention of repeating what I said in the earlier debate, save to say that the Minister was unable to answer the debate because of the time allotted to it. We are therefore still in the dark about the impact of the order.
I want to draw to the Minister's attention two minor points which may nevertheless have some impact. I should like that clarified. I appreciate that the Minister said that the orders had already been before the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, but it is important to be clear about their implications.
Paragraph 3(a) contains the words:
'or any member, not being also an employee".
Does that mean that if a person is not an employee but is on the board he or she would be disqualified from standing for Parliament? Does it mean that, if such a person was an employee of the board, he would be allowed to stand for Parliament, but would subsequently be required to resign?
Why does the order state:
in the entry beginning 'Chairman of a Health and Social Services Board' after 'Chairman' there shall be inserted 'or any member, not being also an employee"?
We require some elucidation on that.
In the amendment to the Vehicles (Excise) Act (Northern Ireland) 1972, provision is made that
A mechanically propelled vehicle shall not be chargeable with any duty under this Act at a time when it is used or kept on a road by a health and social services body
How much money will be saved to the authorities as a result? Where will that money go? The Minister will be aware that problems have arisen about providing transport to day centres, and the like. In my constituency people have been denied the opportunity to go to the local day centre, Orchardville, because of a lack of funds and services.
The thrust of the orders seems to be a move towards care in the community, and encouragement has been given to voluntary and community groups. Will the vehicle excise allowances made in the consequential order be extended to those groups?

Mr. David Trimble: In common with other hon. Members who have spoken in the two necessarily linked debates, I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. On future occasions we hope that he will be able to deal with matters in a more acceptable manner. We must record that the hon. Gentleman has made a bad start. However, that is not necessarily the Minister's fault, as he is not responsible for the legislation—its gestation occurred before his arrival at the Northern Ireland Office. Moreover, the Minister is not responsible—at least, that is what we hope—for the way in which the Government Whips have dealt with the debate.
Also like some of my colleagues, I cannot avoid referring to the way in which this legislation is being dealt with. This important measure, in the form of an Order in Council, can be debated for a mere 90 minutes, and it cannot be amended. It is not well appreciated how much procedures such as this bring this House into disrepute. While these debates attract little attention in the House, they attract attention in Northern Ireland, where people will watch them. Parts of them will be broadcast there and referred to in the press. The people of Northern Ireland will get glimpses of the House and see the acres of green Benches surrounding me.
I am conscious of this problem because, during the by-election that I fought last year, in the course of my doorstep canvassing I told people that, if they elected me, I would go to Westminster to represent their views. Time after time, electors asked me what the point was, and whether the Government would listen. Now they can see images of tonight's debates, in which we have had no chance to debate the legislation properly or to amend it.
I have seen few scenes more ludicrous than the earlier debate, in which hon. Members with weighty matters to discuss were unable to speak. I entirely sympathise with the view expressed by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and I deplore the sad treatment of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs).
It was outrageous of the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) to ask, at the beginning of the debate, whether we could hold the vote first and the debate afterwards. It is bad enough having to deal with an Order in Council without the Conservative party demonstrating its contempt for the House, and, by implication, for Northern Ireland Members.
The second, consequential order, running only to a couple of pages, is allocated as much time for debate as the previous, much lengthier and more important order. I commend the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) for waiving the opportunity to speak to enable more of us to participate. We are grateful to him for that.

Mr. Cryer: The order arises because of powers given 1.0 the Minister many years ago to alter, by order, primary legislation passed by this House in previous years. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such powers are not a good idea, and that we should change them?

Mr. Trimble: I entirely agree that our procedures should be changed. They are indefensible. I take issue, however, with the way in which the hon. Gentleman framed his intervention. Obviously, he believes this to be secondary, not primary, legislation. But it is primary legislation. Technically, any provisions relating to Northern Ireland, not only those which could be transferred under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, can be dealt with in this way. There are signs—I hope that they are not followed through—that the Northern Ireland Office will now try to extend the ambit of Orders in Council to cover matters that have been dealt with by the House in normal and proper legislation. A Minister recently issued a consultation document in which he proposed to legislate by Order in Council to amend an Act affecting Northern Ireland, passed less than a year ago, where only a technical change was necessary.

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman is right. If it is any consolation to him, this procedure, under which Ministers are granted power to change primary legislation through


statutory instruments, can be used for legislation applying to the whole of the United Kingdom. The Education Reform Act 1988 gave the Minister powers to change that Act by means of statutory instruments that did not have to come before the House. That is wrong.

Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman is right. Consequential amendments are made not only to legislation affecting Northern Ireland but to other legislation, such as the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, the Value Added Taxes Act 1983 and the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, which deal with the United Kingdom as a whole. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand if I say that, while he is right, I do not feel much sympathy, because, if this sort of debased legislation is supposed to be fit for us, I do not see why it is not fit for him as well.
Before I was interrupted, I was commending the behaviour of the hon. Member for Wigan who had made more time available for Northern Ireland Members of Parliament to speak by not speaking himself. Sadly, I cannot commend the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) for the same behaviour. He has the unenviable record of having spoken the longest on this subject. This is remarkable, given that he does not represent anybody in Northern Ireland. Indeed, his party will not even allow people in Northern Ireland to join it, but that is another matter.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not like his comments to be misconstrued, and that he will agree that we enjoy the contributions of hon. Members who represent all parts of the United Kingdom. We wish that more of them would attend debates on Northern Ireland. I am sure that the point that the hon. Gentleman wishes to make is that the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen could have done a great deal more to ensure that we had three, not one and a half, hours for the first debate.

Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman is correct. We welcome contributions from all hon. Members, and should like to see all hon. Members being treated equally, regardless of party, and given the same opportunity for participation in Committees. We should also like all citizens of the United Kingdom to be treated equally, rather than some of them being discriminated against, as some are.
The order is consequential to the changes that are being made to the health service in Northern Ireland and to those made in Great Britain. Change is not always a good idea, and an unnecessary change is a bad idea.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Conservatism.

Mr. Trimble: I thought that conservatism was about preserving things from unnecessary change, and making only those changes that, from time to time, become necessary. In many respects, that is a wise philosophy. We should appreciate the extent to which changes are unsettling to people whose primary concern should not be with change. Bureaucrats love change because then they are drawing up new organisational charts, moving people around, and so on.
When there is change, the number of bureaucrats and their salaries and status always seem to inflate. But for the

people delivering the service, who in the health service are primarily the doctors and the nurses, change is undesirable. I do not think that people fully appreciate the extent to which changes such as this cause confusion, uncertainty and demoralisation within the health service. I am deeply conscious of that having met °and spoken to some of the staff in Lurgan hospital in my constituency. Some are close to distraction with worry that is consequent on the changes.
In some respects, the health service is being handbagged—forgive me for using that term. I do so bearing in mind the time when the changes were initiated and the mental attitude that lay behind them. The term refers to the desire attributed to the previous Prime Minister to hit any established institution with her handbag. I would have hoped that, with the arrival of the new Prime Minister, who seems to want to demonstrate a kinder and gentler approach, the opportunity would have been taken to re-examine the changes. I do not think that they will benefit the health service or the patients and within the next year or two the Government will have to unscramble elements of the changes, not just in Northern Ireland but throughout the United Kingdom. Again, we will have the sort of change that disrupts the service.
Paragraph 3 contains a series of amendments to the House of Commons Disqualification Act. I understand that the change contained in paragraph 3(a) was made to include within the list of offices which result in disqualification from membership of the House not just the chairman, who was previously disqualified, but other members of the new boards. I presume that that reflects the changes in the character of the boards. It would not previously have been appropriate for the other members to be disqualified, because they involved a range of persons, including elected representatives. But as a result of the change there will be a different character of person on the boards; a person who is to a large extent a creature of the Minister, a person appointed by the Minister, who is in no way representative.
The change gives rise to some worries, but one particular worry that I have concerns another hospital in my constituency, at Banbridge, where the geriatric unit, known as Spelga house, presently accommodates some 35 elderly persons who are incapable of looking after themselves and need constant medical care. For some time, the board has had before it a proposal to close Spelga house, but that proposal has not yet been implemented. The board knows that, if it attempted to bring about that closure without making adequate provision for the inhabitants, the elected representatives on the board would certainly not agree and would almost certainly find ways of blocking the proposal.
That proposal, which has been dormant for some time, was suddenly brought into the limelight again a few weeks ago in December, causing considerable upset to the patients and their relatives with the prospect of a move to they knew not where. Following representations, it now becomes clear that the proposal to close the unit will be brought to the new board for active consideration in April or May.
With the old system, which allowed for elected representatives, the community had an opportunity to influence the board's decision, and was confident that it would be sensible. Consequently, officials did not bring the proposal to close that facility before the old board. However, it will be put to the new board, which will not be


representative. Many fear that that is being done to effect a closure which would not otherwise have been achieved. If that closure occurs—I hope very much that it does not —it would be entirely appropriate for article 3 to be amended to include within the range of disqualified persons the relevant Northern Ireland Minister.
Reference has been made in another context to the principle of subsidiarity, which the Government use to argue that decisions currently made by the European Commission should be devolved to national government. Subsidiarity involves devolving decision making to the lowest possible level consistent with efficiency and other considerations—which can mean not only regions but local authorities. However, the proposed changes will mean decisions being taken at a higher level. The hoard and committee structure is being altered, and their membership reduced, which will mean that the Department will take more decisions.
Article 7 makes reference to the new national health service contracts, and I am concerned that principal legislation will expressly provide for those contracts to be non-justiciable. Contracts that would normally be legally binding will not be, but will be enforced in other ways. It is unfortunate that a special form of law is being created in respect of those contracts, and that touches on another area of concern. The Minister made reference to the number of persons who will serve on the new councils—24 on some, 30 on another, and so on. However, that membership is not specified in the legislation. The measure describes certain provisions in general terms, but the Minister speaks as though there were hard and fast regulations, when none exist. That is an inappropriate and undesirable form of legislation, and its provisions should be spelt out in much greater detail.
One would like to deal with other aspects of the measure, but our debate is limited to the consequential amendments only. Therefore, I will merely repeat my earlier assertion that the provisions will do nothing to improve the quality of Northern Ireland's health service —and the way in which they are being introduced does nothing for parliamentary democracy.

Mr. Peter Robinson: My one hope about tonight's proceedings is that the mean-spirited business managers of this House will look upon the fiasco here this evening and learn something from it. In effect, they have gained nothing in terms of time. It would have been better by far had they given us three hours on the first order, on which we could have had a much wider debate, rather than being restricted and contained on the second order, as we necessarily are.
I wonder whether there was method in what would appear to be the business managers' madness. Was it their intention to push through the House an order which is clearly so absurd and objectionable that there would have been three hours of objections from hon. Members on both sides? Did the Government think that they would curtail that opposition to one and a half hours in the hope that little would be said about the second order?
It is clear that the views of the people of Northern Ireland, as expressed by their elected representatives—albeit in two short debates—are clearly against the order. However, it seems to mean nothing to the Minister that, as a representative of a community outside Northern Ireland,

he is imposing something upon us that elected representatives from both sides of our community do not want. That is the heart of the matter that I want to discuss.
I should have liked to pay tribute, in the three minutes allocated to me in the earlier debate, to the Minister's Department, and especially to the nurses and doctors of Forster Green hospital. In the past few weeks I had a n experience which allows me to pass comment on the state of our health service in Northern Ireland. My late father lay in Forster Green hospital for at least three months, and during that time, as I stayed at his bedside in the late hours and overnight, I had a first-hand glimpse of the health and social services at work. I do not for one minute believe that the nurses and doctors at that hospital are any different from those in other hospitals and, without the slightest doubt, I can say that they showed a degree of care, compassion and concern that one could never write into employment contracts for any nurse or doctor. They did a tremendous job and worked extremely hard, and they went far beyond their contract of service.
However, during that time, I must inform the Minister that I noticed how rundown our hospitals are becoming. I noticed buckets along the corridors to catch rain that was coming through the roof, because the hospital could not afford the money to repair it. I noticed the hours that staff have to work—some of the nurses went way beyond what they were contractually paid for, simply to do the job. I noticed a rundown service, and the Minister should realise that it will be a false economy if more money is not injected into the health service in Northern Ireland. I shall stop there. I should have liked to comment on that in much greater detail in the earlier debate, but now we are dealing with consequential amendments, and I can go no further down that road.
There is a consequential amendment which I think that the Minister should have included in the order, but which is not contained in it. During my earlier remarks I said that this order more than simply tinkers with the way in which health and social services are dealt with in Northern Ireland—in effect, it is a constitutional change. I shall explain that, because I think that necessary changes will be required to the Northern Ireland Constitution (Amendment) Act 1973 as a result of this order.
Since the Stormont Parliament was taken away Northern Ireland has been governed by direct rule. The only form of democracy that we have had for many years is the ability of elected representatives to speak in the House on Orders in Council in the time frame provided by its business managers—usually at this time of night, which is why I am now speaking at 1.4 am. Those concerned with the way in which Northern Ireland was being governed therefore thought it necessary to provide some form of democracy in the Province: they rightly regarded the way in which Northern Ireland was being treated at Westminster as an inadequate response. They knew that elected local representatives had a far greater input on health and personal social services in other parts of the United Kingdom, and that district councils had a much bigger say. Therefore, an essential part of the contract contained in the 1973 Act was the provision of a role for district councils in housing, education, health and social services and other functions covered by the Department of the Environment. In some instances, they had a consultative role in the council itself; in others, they were given a direct role on the boards that would control the various functions.
In the passing of the order that we are discussing, we have already seen a breach of that contract. As yet it has not happened in other spheres, but I have no doubt that the Minister is setting a pattern. He is taking away Northern Ireland's democracy and removing any say that elected representatives might have in health and social services. No elected representative in Northern Ireland will be a member of the board that will govern those services; no Northern Ireland Member is likely to be the Minister in overall charge of that Department—unless, of course, we have a Northern Ireland Assembly; like the Minister, I will pray hard for that. As Unionists, we are waiting to see the response of others: perhaps we shall, before the week is out. But I shall not pursue that line, as a constitutional debate about the Anglo-Irish Agreement might try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The contract that existed under the 1973 Act, as amended, provided for local democracy by way of area boards for both education and social services. The Minister has changed all that: he has taken on himself the full power to appoint whomever he wishes to the top level of health and social services in Northern Ireland, and—as a throwaway measure—he will give a minority of places on a council below the level of the board to elected representatives. I believe that the figure is 40 per cent. The Minister has given control to those whom he employs and pays.

Mr. Hanley: Forty per cent. of members will be appointed by district councils. They do not have to be elected representatives; that is up to them.

Mr. Robinson: Will those whom the Minister appoints to the boards be able, of necessity, to exclude members of district councils, or is he prepared to include them, even if he will not allocate a precise number of places to them?

Mr. Trimble: The Minister says that 40 per cent. will he elected by district councils. That is not in the legislation. The Minister is merely referring to regulations that he may make, and may intend at the moment to make; the regulations may be made in a different form.

Mr. Robinson: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Article 3 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order talks about prescribed numbers, but does not prescribe a number. The Minister might be in a good mood today and agree to 40 per cent., but tomorrow he might be in a bad mood and agree to none. That order does not require any elected representatives.
I note with disappointment the way in which members of the health and social services councils are referred to as being public representatives, as if there were some form of democracy. The truth is that they may be members of the public, but, unless they are elected representatives, they have no mandate to speak on behalf of the public. The Minister has removed the democratic principle from health and social services in Northern Ireland. The House will have taken ill his comment that, because he has had some consultation outside the House, "Democracy had been served." He allows for consultation outside the House, but it does not matter what happens inside. He believes that democracy has been served.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that such democracy is not even practised in Hong Kong, where the Legislative Council has a greater say in debating issues than Northern Ireland Members have here?

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman is right. Is not it sad that eastern European countries could give the Minister a lesson on how democracy should work in Northern Ireland? He is lagging behind those who in the past he would have criticised. There is more democracy perhaps almost anywhere else in the world than in Northern Ireland. This facade of Orders in Council only serves to show—[Interruption.] I thought that the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) was going to make a contribution earlier, which we had looked forward to, but he did not do SO.
A change is required in the order to include changes to the Northern Ireland Constitution (Amendment) Act, because the Government have squeezed democracy out of Northern Ireland and, under the order, implemented a dictatorship.

Mr. Hanley: I shall attempt briefly to summarise some of the points that have been made.
The speech of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) should be a model for Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. It was generous, factual, intelligent and perfectly judged.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said that change is always unwelcome. The change under the order will mean better management to deal with the increasing demands on the health and personal social services, and it therefore should be welcomed.
The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) spoke of the Antrim hospital and the future of the Moyle hospital. The board has deferred a decision on the pattern of services to be retained at the Moyle post-1993 and has given a commitment that, for the time being, it will seek to maintain the services that are provided there. I spoke to the board's chairman about that only last week. Final proposals on future services will be subject to the approval of the Department, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the action committee will be afforded an opportunity to make any representations that it considers appropriate.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) spoke of the different structure of the council and the new boards. They are different bodies; one is an executive management body and the other is advisory. Therefore, the difference in size is acceptable. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept the House's sympathy on the loss of his father.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) referred to professionals on boards. It is open to any board to appoint professionals to executive posts if it wishes and I would expect that most boards would want to do that. There is such a wide variety of people on the councils that there should be no reason why their views are not heard.
The hon. Member also referred to the duty of the councils. Those duties will include keeping under review the operation of health and social services in a council's area, making recommendations for improving services of the relevant board and commenting on the board's plans particularly in relation to substantial developments or


variations in the provision of services. Councils will be able to act on behalf of patients and clients in connection with complaints.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone also raised a very good point which should be stressed. I pledge tonight that I will ensure that health and social security councils will have power to obtain information from boards, and that will include making board members answer questions directly, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. He also mentioned fund raising. We regard that as an important part of the health service. There is no reason why one should want to quench voluntary donations. However, any funds raised as a result of the new powers will be additional to statutory resources and not instead of them. No one will suffer because of the generosity of those who want to spend money in that way.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) wanted to know why there was an extension to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. That arises because the new board members will now be receiving salaries. They will be in receipt of an office of profit. Therefore, as the chairman is disqualified at present, so those new board members would be disqualified. With regard to the Vehicles (Excise) (Northern Ireland) Act 1972, the current exemptions from duty will continue and there will be no significant financial consequences.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann referred to disputes and queried the need for this new body of law. But it is not a new body of law. There are plenty of incidents in English law—and I use the term advisedly—where disputes may be sent to arbitration. There are examples in which the parties have agreed that they should not resort to going to court over an issue. As I tried to explain earlier, the disputes are not really disputes between two completely outside contracting parties; they are disputes between people within an organisation and therefore internal arbitration would seem to be more sensible.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann also referred to the 24 and 30 membership for councils. That proves that consultation achieved something. We have increased the number, although the figure is not yet carved in stone. We have shown our intention to allow the Eastern board to have 30 members and that decision was taken as a result of consultation over a considerable period.
I have listened carefully to the points and questions that have been raised and I hope that I have dealt satisfactorily with them. I shall examine the Official Report and, if any points have not been covered, I will write to the hon.

Members concerned. I thank all hon. Members for the interest they have shown. I sympathise greatly with their frustration. This is an important issue and, in spite of the shortness of the debate, the order should be supported by the House.

Mr. William Ross: Does the Minister appreciate the number of orders that are outstanding for discussion between now and the summer recess? He can look forward to many late nights.

Mr. Hanley: As quite a lot of them are coming across my desk, I hope that the hon. Gentleman sympathises with me as much as I sympathise with him.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 22nd January, be approved.

Mr. Maginnis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On the Order Paper there is a motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Brooke relating to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill. It is not the desire of my party to impede anything that may be beneficial to the people whom we represent, but we now have a further example of a lack of information from the Northern Ireland Office. I can conjecture what the motion may be about, but I have no assurance of what it is. It may be something that I shall regret in future. Until we know what the motion is about, it will be incumbent on members of my party to object. In doing so, we regret that we may be holding up the business of the House or the Committee, but it illustrates our point about the lack of consultation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall be putting the motion. The hon. Gentleman is quite right—it is not possible to debate it after 10 o'clock. If he wishes to object to it, he is within his rights to do so.

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL

Motion made, and Question put,

That it be an Instruction to Standing Committee B that they have power to amend the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill so as to make, in relation to the whole of the United Kingdom, provision for and in connection with the exercise of investigation powers by persons other than constables.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Clinical Waste Incinerators

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment for the fact that it is now 21 minutes past 1 o'clock. I am sorry if I have kept him out of bed, but the issue that I am about to raise is of great interest and concern to my constituents.
A long-running saga has caused and is causing great concern in my constituency. It relates to a proposal for a clinical waste incinerator for Greater Manchester waste disposal authority, which seems to be the only body that wants it. In January 1988, when Trafford was a huge council with a Labour chairman of the planning committee—Councillor Mrs. Merry—outline planning permission was granted. We must remember that point because it is vital. I mention the political complexion of the council at that time, because some people are trying to score political points. They have a very poor case and they would be much better employed in trying not to turn the issue into a political one.
In March 1989, when the Conservatives had regained control of the council, the plans were voted out. In May 1989, the Greater Manchester waste disposal authority lodged an appeal. In November 1989, the planning inspectorate decided to hold a public local inquiry, and, on 1 December 1989, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment decided to determine the appeal himself. The inquiry was due to start on 26 June 1990. That was then changed to 12 February 1991, at the request of Trafford council and the Greater Manchester waste disposal authority, to allow time to consider amended proposals by Greater Manchester waste disposal authority.
However, in December 1990, on legal advice the council reluctantly accepted that it was not feasible to revoke the outline planning permission. Not surprisingly, the possibility of the councillors being surcharged a substantial amount had a sobering effect. It puts all of them under great pressure. The chairman of the health and housing committee stated that he did not have that sort of money in his bank account.
The chairman of the local Labour party, who, I think, will be the candidate for the ward in the local election, went public and said that he believed that there was no danger that councillors would be surcharged. I can only suggest that he puts his money where his mouth is and offers to pay the surcharge that could be imposed on councillors. It is very silly of people to make such statements about a very serious issue.
I appealed by letter to Councillor Dennis Fogg, the chairman of the Greater Manchester waste disposal authority. I asked him to get his authority to look for another site for this incinerator—a site well away from a residential area. I asked him also whether he would come to the area to meet the local residents and hear what they had to say, but the invitation was politely declined. I stressed to Councillor Fogg the anxiety of the people in the area, but he stated that the local concern was misplaced.
Ironically, another Labour councillor—Jane Baugh—takes a contrary view. In a letter to the Sale and Altrincham Messenger, she stated:

What the Labour party is saying to concerned residents is 'Do not be deceived. It is propaganda attempting to allay the fears of local people."'
We must continue to campaign against the siting of a new clinical waste incinerator for the sake of the future health of the people of Trafford.
Which councillor should we believe? Should we believe the Labour chairman of the Greater Manchester waste disposal authority, who says that there are no health risks, or should we believe Councillor Jane Baugh, who does not believe her socialist colleague? All that I know is that there are great anxieties among my constituents, and that these have not been allayed in any way at all. In fact, a group of them have set up an organisation called BRASH—Broadheath Residents Association for Safety and Health. BRASH sent the councillors who are members of the planning committee a letter dated 2 January 1991. That letter says:
We would ask that the following be taken into consideration before a decision is made on the above application.
On the issue of clinical waste, it says:
No decision should be taken until we have had time to contact HMIP"—
Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution—
to allow them to justify their reasons for adopting the European Commission Council directive 89/369 EEC of the 8th June 1989 for this incinerator. This is applicable to municipal waste incineration plant ONLY and explicitly excludes incineration plants for medical waste from hospitals.
A note in the letter says:
We have passed the above details on to the Director of EC Environmental Commission and we await his reply on this matter.
On the question of siting, BRASH says:
The Council's own 'policy for incinerators' …states that incinerators shall not be sited within 1,000 metres of any main residential areas.
The current proposal will be within 600 metres of a highly populated residential area.
I suppose that the founders of this organisation include people from all parties and from none, but they care desperately about what is going on in the area. They are not trying to score political points. They have done a great deal of work and research. That shows just how concerned they are about what they believe could be the damaging effects on the health of people in the area in which the Greater Manchester waste disposal authority wants to locate this incinerator.
I am told that over 5,000 residents have signed a petition opposing the plan. People are incensed because they feel that the council has had to change its mind as a result of the threat of surcharge. In other words, they believe that the council has had to change its mind under duress. They are asking that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment call in the application for review. I should be grateful for my hon. Friend's comments on that point. I should be grateful also to hear his thinking about a waste disposal policy guidance note. This is an idea that has been mooted for quite some time.
Waste disposal is a controversial subject. Everyone admits that the waste must go somewhere, somehow, but no one wants it in his back yard. People today are rightly more environmentally conscious. But, if the idea of distributing a planning policy guidance note is realised, it would offer clear guidance to both developers of waste


disposal sites and the planning authorities. It would certainly have prevented the tangle that has arisen in my constituency.
The planning policy guidance note would cover all forms of waste disposal, including incineration, landfill and recycling and would clarify the current planning guidance that is to be given for each option. As my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware, the Government have tabled amendments on waste disposal to the Planning and Compensation Bill. Those amendments will ensure that the county planning authorities prepare waste disposal development plans and thus ensure that there is a strategic plan for waste disposal in the county's boundaries. I understand that the Government place increasing emphasis on development plans as the framework within which individual planning applications should be considered. Where development plans provide a clear framework, they can reduce the controversy and delay that planning applications and appeals could face.
Of course, it is essential that the plans take into account the environmental protection waste disposal plans and establish land use policies and proposals for waste disposal which are consistent with the nature, quantity and distribution of waste, as forecast in the environment protection plan. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give some consideration to a waste disposal planning policy guidance note.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can tell me whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment can call in for review the proposal which has caused so much anxiety in my constituency. People simply cannot understand why an incinerator which is wanted only by Greater Manchester waste disposal authority can be foisted upon us because Trafford council made a serious mistake by granting outline planning permission way back in January 1988.
I must admit that I have been deeply disappointed by the attitude of Councillor Fogg, the Labour chairman of the Greater Manchester waste disposal authority. I received a letter from him dated 18 January 1991 in which he stated:
I, and my colleagues on the GMWDA, are fully aware of the nature and the extent of the opposition to the clinical waste incinerator proposals. We have already had discussions with local residents, and their elected representatives, on a number of occasions and despite the evidence we have presented, it is regretted that local concern should still run high but in our view, much of that concern is misplaced. Having considered your request, I do not feel that there would be any benefit, for any party, if we arranged or participated in further meetings, at this stage.
Your letter raises a number of points on which I would wish to comment.
The issue of revocation of planning permission is a well-established legal principle and carries with it compensation provisions and rights in favour of the would-be developer. As the local planning authority, I am sure that Trafford Members are fully aware of these provisions when outline and detailed planning applications are presented to them for determination.
As far as criteria for siting incinerators are concerned, Trafford MBC intends to adopt the principle that incinerators should not be sited within 1,000 metres of the Borough's main residential areas. This principle has no technical foundation and has been adopted unilaterally by Trafford although, as the waste disposal authority, we have been invited to comment on the overall policy provisions. The monitoring and operation of the existing incinerator and the findings of

the recent scientific investigation of dioxin levels in the vicinity of the plant do not support the justification for a 1,000 metre limit, nor does the evidence we submitted in support of our detailed planning proposals.
Later, he said:
Our major regret has been the delay in reaching the present stage. The costs of the equipment and the civil and other associated works are likely to have risen by 30 per cent. since the original tenders were invited in 1988".
I hope that my hon. Friend can see from that the outlook of someone who feels that he has the whip hand. He has refused to listen to the local people. He has pooh-poohed the criteria that Trafford has adopted for the siting of incinerators. His major regret is that, because of opposition to his scheme, it will be more costly than he envisaged. He should be reminded that the health worries of local residents have not been allayed in any way by his bland assurances.
I trust that my hon. Friend can say something about how protection can be offered to my constituents whose concern I share. I am anxious to know whether the Department of the Environment has any powers to deal with a case like this. I hope that my hon. Friend can give me some reassurance in his reply.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this important issue on the Adjournment. He is, as always, a tireless champion of the interests of his constituents and has, as ever, made his points extremely well, concisely, comprehensively and with considerable clarity. I will do my best to respond to his concerns and to the concerns of his constituents.
Waste is an inevitable product of our society, and how we dispose of it reflects on the quality of society. We may try to minimise the amount of waste that we produce and recycle as much as possible, but a substantial proportion will still remain, and we cannot avoid providing the necessary facilities properly to dispose of it. That applies just as much to clinical waste as to other types of waste. The issue which my hon. Friend has correctly identified is not therefore whether but how and where we should provide disposal facilities. I should like to deal with the "how" before coming on to consider the "where".
The majority of waste in this country is landfilled, and this remains an option for a good deal of clinical waste. However, certain types of clinical waste are not suitable for landfill, and it is not always practicable to separate such wastes from other clinical wastes. It has become normal practice to incinerate all clinical waste from hospitals—frequently on site in one of around 600 hospital incinerators. Most of these are fairly small, and many will have difficulty meeting the new European Community arid Environmental Protection Act 1990 standards when they lose Crown exemption in April. Both the private sector and waste disposal authorities are, therefore, taking a greater interest in the provision of larger centralised facilities to serve a number of hospitals, and incorporating advanced incinerator techniques and standards.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with incineration as a method of waste disposal, provided that operating conditions and flue gas emissions are strictly controlled. Indeed, in many countries incineration is considered more environmentally acceptable than landfill for all types of waste, and is the predominant method of waste disposal.
It is clear that the public here are less favourably disposed towards incineration. They are understandably concerned about such things as possible emissions of dioxins and other pollutants. I am, therefore, glad to have the opportunity of reassuring my hon. Friend and his constituents that the new controls which we have introduced will set the highest and most rigorous standards for the incineration of all types of waste, and will ensure that incinerators—wherever they are located —present no danger to public health or the environment.
In future, the main controls will be applied through the provisions of part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. This applies a new system of integrated pollution control to all incinerators with a capacity of more than one tonne an hour and will come into effect from 1 April this year. Operators of such incinerators will be required to apply to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution for authorisation before the plant can commence operations, or whenever a substantial change is proposed. Those authorisations will specify the conditions under which plants must operate, including combustion conditions and appropriate techniques for controlling releases to air, water, or land. This integrated approach will ensure that all the environmental effects of a process are considered together. Operators will be required to use the best available techniques not entailing excessive costs to prevent and minimise toxic emissions, and to render harmless those emissions which cannot be prevented. The inspectorate is producing a series of guidance notes on best available techniques not entailing excessive costs, setting out the minimum standards that it expects plants to adopt, and these standards will be reviewed at least every four years.
I can assure my hon. Friend that the standards imposed under those arrangements will be extremely rigorous indeed and will in some cases go beyond the requirements of the new European Community directives on incinerator emissions. Dioxins—which are produced from the uncontrolled burning of plastic materials and which are perhaps the greatest concern—will have to be reduced to below the level at which they can be effectively measured. The Department of the Environment's pollution paper No. 27, "Dioxins in the Environment", published in 1989, pointed out that in well-managed incinerators emissions of dioxins were reduced to negligible levels—in fact, far below the background level in the atmosphere as a result of wood burning, car exhausts and so forth.
However, I fully appreciate that the imposition of high standards does not mean that we can ignore the siting of incinerators. No one wants an industrial plant sited near him, whatever its purpose. That is where the planning system comes in and, of course, no incinerator project can go ahead without planning permission.
Greater Manchester waste disposal authority's proposal for a clinical waste incinerator at Altrincham has gone through that process, and Trafford borough council has, as my hon. Friend mentioned, recently given planning permission for it to go ahead. Therefore, there is no locus for the Secretary of State to be involved. Planning permission has been granted and that is where the matter stands. I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to comment on that. Nevertheless, I understand that the proposed incinerator will have a capacity of more than 1

tonne per hour, so it follows that it will require authorisation from HMIP under the integrated pollution control arrangements before it can start operation.
To deal with individual planning applications for such facilities does present problems for local authorities, if they cannot be set into an overall strategy for dealing with waste in the area. That is why the Control of Pollution Act 1974 requires waste disposal authorities to draw up waste disposal plans to consider the amounts and types of waste arising in the area and the ways in which they will be disposed of. This enables authorities to assess the need for new facilities and the type of provision that should be made. Those powers have been strengthened under the Environmental Protection Act. However, the actual siting of facilities needs also to be considered in a planning framework. People will have more confidence that the right decisions have been taken if they can see that the options have been thoroughly investigated and the views of all the different interests have been fully taken into account.
We are making provision for that planning framework to be put in place. Only yesterday we moved amendments to the Planning and Compensation Bill in another place to require county councils in England, and district councils in Wales, to draw up planning policies for waste management and disposal. Those new waste local plans will set out authorities' detailed land use policies for the disposal and treatment of waste within the broad strategic framework provided by the county structure plan. They will ensure that planning authorities consider the land use implications of their waste policies from a strategic point of view rather than deciding applications in isolation. This will help authorites in deciding planning applications for new waste disposal facilities. And when applications go to appeal, or are called in by the Secretary of State, then the plans will provide better guidelines for the inspector. I believe that this will be of real benefit to the waste disposal industry. The planning process will be speeded up, and the industry will have guidance on the type and location of waste facilities that are likely to be acceptable in planning terms.
The new development plans will consider the need for sites and facilities in particular areas and the types of locations that are likely to be appropriate, as well as the planning criteria that would be expected to apply to such developments. Obviously the new waste disposal development plans will need to be consistent with the plans which authorities are already required to draw up under the Control of Pollution Act and Environmental Protection Act. We consulted interested parties on our proposals for waste development plans during the autumn, and I am pleased to say that there was a general welcome for them, both from the relevant planning authorities, and from the waste disposal industry.
My hon. Friend sensibly also suggested that there is a need for planning policy guidance on waste disposal facilities. We accept that there is a need for such guidance; and we made clear in the environment White Paper our intention to prepare new guidance on planning, pollution control and waste management. One of the issues that we shall certainly consider in the new guidance is the role of the new waste development plans and their relationship to pollution control in the light of the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act.
Work has started on the drafting of the planning policy guidance within my Department and our intention is to


publish a draft for public consultation later this year. We shall want to hear the views of all interested parties before preparing a final version of the guidance note.
I hope that I have managed to cover both the hows and wheres of waste incineration, and clinical waste incineration in particular. I hope that I have made clear to my hon. Friend that there is no scope for my Department to be involved in this matter, planning permission having been granted. Given the nature of the incinerator, however, the operators will be required to apply to HMIP for authorisation before the plant can commence operations. This authorisation will specify the conditions in which the plant must operate, including a host of conditions relating to appropriate techniques for

controlling releases into the air, and so on. HMIP will want to consult on that. There is no reason why my hon. Friend should not approach HMIP to ensure that it is aware of his concerns and that those of his constituents are made clear.
I hope that I have also explained that there will be rapid changes in the legislative controls applied to waste management in the next few years. I hope that those changes will lead people to accept that incineration is a safe and viable option for waste disposal, and that the planning process will ensure that decisions are taken on a sensible strategic basis.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Two o'clock.